In the matter of the Civil Commitment of R.F.

R.F., when he was seventeen years old, engaged in sexual conduct with two children, ages twelve and thirteen. He pled guilty in adult court to endangering the welfare of both children and was sentenced to a five-year term at the Adult Diagnostic and Treatment Center at Avenel. Before R.F. completed his sentence, the State petitioned to have R.F. civilly committed under the Sexually Violent Predator Act (SVPA). Although the trial court found that R.F. committed predicate sexual offenses and suffered from a personality disorder, but concluded that the State had not proven by clear and convincing evidence that R.F. was highly likely to engage in sexually violent behavior if not civilly committed. The Appellate Division reversed, determining that the opinions of the State’s experts were “well-supported by the record and amply substantiate the State’s petition for R.F.’s commitment under the SVPA.” Selecting the facts it deemed more credible, accepting the opinions it viewed more persuasive, and drawing its own inferences from the record, the panel came to a different conclusion than the trial court. The issue before the Supreme Court was not whether members of the panel would have decided the case differently had they heard the case. Nor was the issue whether evidence in the record supports the opinions of the State’s experts. Rather, the Supreme Court determined the central issue of this case was whether sufficient credible evidence in the record supported the trial court's findings. "Those findings are entitled to deference, for Judge Perretti was not only intimately familiar with the case file but also had the unique opportunity to hear the witnesses, to judge their credibility, and to weigh their testimony - things that cannot be gleaned from the cold record." As such, the Supreme Court concluded that he trial court’s findings in a civil commitment hearing under the Sexually Violent Predator Act, were entitled to deference, and a reviewing court could not overturn the commitment court’s ruling based upon its determination that it would have come to a different conclusion had it sat as the trier of fact. View "In the matter of the Civil Commitment of R.F." on Justia Law