Judge's Finding Against Civil Commitment Of A Sex-Offender Is Reversed

C.H. is a rapist with a history of sex crime convictions for acts committed from 1978 through 2005 against women ages 17 to 36. C.H. also has a history of convictions for drug offenses, robbery, receiving stolen property and theft, parole violations and failure to register as a sex offender. As a result of his previous post-release behaviors and prior pleas and guilty verdicts including sexual assault, attempted criminal sexual contact, terroristic threats, assault, criminal sexual assault, criminal restraint, criminal attempt and rape the State petitioned, in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Essex County, for the civil commitment of C.H. pursuant to the Sexually Violent Predator Act (SVPA)(N.J.S.A. 30:4-27.24 to -27.38) upon his scheduled release from the Special Treatment Unit (STU). In May 2012, two State psychiatrists both found that C.H. fit the criteria for civil commitment under the SVPA due to his inability to control his own sexually violent behavior, likelihood of reoffending and danger to the public as set forth in In re Commitment of W.Z., 173 N.J. 109 (2009) and In re Civil Commitment of A.H.B., 386 N.J. Super. 16 (App. Div. 2006). The State’s burden of proof in seeking civil commitment is clear and convincing evidence pursuant to In re Civil Commitment of J.H.M., 367 N.J. Super. 599 (App. Div. 2003). During a commitment hearing, C.H.’s psychiatrist contended that C.H. was not “highly likely” to reoffend if released. Although the judge held that C.H. suffered from paraphilia, antisocial personality disorder (ASPD) and polysubstance abuse and there was a risk that C.H. would reoffend, the judge held that the State had not met its burden of proof. In re the Civil Commitment of C.H. resulted in the State’s appeal of the judge’s finding with regard to C.H.’s likelihood of reoffending. Pursuant to In re Civil Commitment of T.J.N., 390 N.J. Super. 218, 225 (App. Div. 2007) a trial court’s order of commitment under the SVPA will be reversed only for “an abuse of discretion or lack of evidence to support it.” Under In re D.C., 146 N.J. 31 (1996) the record must be reviewed to determine whether the judge’s decision reflected the evidence presented and findings set forth by the experts for both sides collectively where the factfinder would not have sufficient knowledge to make an informed decision without reference to expert opinions. Reasoning that the judge’s failure to find a risk of re-offense in light of evidence and expert opinions presented was a “mistaken exercise in discretion” the N.J. Appellate Division reversed the matter with direction to the trial judge to more fully review the record with regard to the issues presented at future review hearings regarding the commitment of C.H. If you are facing sex crime charges the consequences are severe including potential registry as a sex-offender under Megan's Law, the stigma associated with sexual assault perpetrators, prison and possibly civil commitment. If you are charged with a sex crime, you should obtain experienced criminal defense counsel immediately. For more information about sexual assault, rape, internet crimes, solicitation of a minor, endangering the welfare of a minor or other sex crimes in NJ visit HeatherDarlingLawyer.com. This blog is for informational purposes only and not intended to replace the advice of an attorney.

Sexual Assault Case Hinges On Voluntary Confession

In State v. R.P. the defendant was convicted of sexual assault by sexual penetration of a blood relative between the ages of 16 and 18 (N.J.S.A. 2C:14-2(c)(3)(a)); fourth degree criminal sexual contact (N.J.S.A. 2C:14-3(b)); and one count of endangering the welfare of a child (N.J.S.A. 2C:24-4(a)). The defendant was sentenced to 8 years each on counts one and two to be served consecutively with the remaining sentences to be served concurrently with count one resulting in a total sentence of 16 years. Defendant lived with his biological children and his wife. His wife suspected defendant of being unfaithful and placed a recording device in their bedroom and, days later, found a recording of the defendant and his daughter in what seemed to be sexual acts. The defendant's wife contacted the Bergen County Prosecutor's office who interviewed the defendant's 17 year old daughter who advised the prosecutor sexual acts had occurred between her and the defendant. Detectives visited R.P. at his residence, notified him he was the subject of an investigation and requested that he go to the Prosecutor's Office with them for questioning. The defendant went with the detectives, was Mirandized and waived his Miranda rights. During an 8 minute videotaped interview the defendant stated that for approximately 6 months he and his daughter would lie, in their underwear, on the bed defendant shared with his wife and watch television while the defendant hugged and kissed his daughter's body. He also admitted to putting his mouth on her vagina but denied ever having sexual intercourse. The matter was originally heard in Bergen County Superior Court. At trial, defendant's wife indicated she was under a great deal of stress when she thought the voices were her husband and his daughter and later realized the voices were her cousins who had been visiting that weekend. The daughter provided the same testimony she had originally provided to the detectives. The taped confession was provided to the jury and admitted into evidence without objection by defense counsel. The defendant appealed the matter based on lack of the voluntariness of his confession for failure of the court to comply with N.J.R.E. 104 relating to voluntariness of the confession and N.J.R.E. 403 balancing test to determine whether the probative value of defendant's statement was substantially outweighed by the prejudice it would cause against defendant. R.P. claimed his confession was "false because it was made in a stressful and inherently coercive situation." State v. Cook, 179 N.J. 533 (2004), State v. Jordan, 147 N.J. 409 (1997) and State v. Kelly, 61 N.J. 283 (1972) are among a long line of cases indicating that confessions obtained under coercive circumstances are inherently unreliable. The NJ Appellate Division remanded the matter for a Rule 104 hearing in which the state must demonstrate the voluntariness of the defendant's confession beyond a reasonable doubt. The appeals court did not agree with the State that the evidence against defendant was "overwhelming" and found the failure to conduct a Rule 104 hearing to be plain error. The Appellate Court further considered the fact that admission of the confession, if it was involuntary, could certainly produce an unjust result. If you are charged with a sex crime you are subject to incarceration, registration as a sex offender and the accompanying stigma which will affect where you may live, where you may work and how others will treat you and possibly even civil commitment. It is critical that you obtain experienced criminal defense counsel to assist you with these charges. For more information about rape, endangering the welfare of a minor, sexual assault, criminal sexual contact and other sex crimes in New Jersey visit HeatherDarlingLawyer.com. This blog is for informational purposes only and not intended to replace the advice of an attorney.

Sex Offender's Confession Inadmissible

Bergen County Superior Court Judge Patrick Roma oversaw a trial in which R.P. was convicted on four counts of 2nd degree sexual assault by sexual penetration of a blood relative between the ages of 16 and 18 (N.J.S.A. 2C:14-2(a)), one count of 4th degree criminal sexual contact (N.J.S.A. 2C:14-3) and one count of 2nd degree endangering the welfare of a child (N.J.S.A. 2C:24-4) for allegedly having sexual contact with R.P.'s own 17 year old daughter, "Jane". R.P. was sentenced to consecutive 8 year terms on two of the counts, with the remaining sentences to be served concurrently. R.P.'s wife, "Vera", was suspicious that R.P. and "Jane" were having a sexual relationship and placed a recording device in the master bedroom of their home and later found a recording of a "very explicit sexual interaction" in which, upon reporting, she verified the voices of "Jane" and R.P. "Jane" advised officers, during her interview, that she and her father were sexually involved and that she participated due to privileges he would afford her including use of a car, later curfew and permission to date. "Vera" later recanted her testimony indicting she was under substantial stress at the time she made the tape and identified the voices and later realized the voices were those of her cousins who had been visiting the residence at the time of the recording. R.P. initially denied the allegations and later confessed in a video and audio interview by police to a consensual sexual relationship indicating they never had intercourse. R.P. challenged the conviction based on the voluntariness of the confession in which one officer was yelling at him and, due to lack of understanding, made statements to protect his daughter. R.P. claimed "Jane" provided false testimony based on R.P. having disciplined her and he also stated the voices on the wife's tape were those of the wife's cousins. The Appellate Division found no impropriety in the two consecutive sentences based on the need to deter such activity. However, in regard to the confessions, they held that, in spite of defense counsel's failure to object to the confession upon the prosecution's entry of the statement into evidence but then calling for a mistrial the following day, it was plain error for the trial judge not to conduct a hearing under NJ Rule of Evidence 104 to determine the voluntariness of the confession. Rule 104 addresses the reliability of statements given during confession in an effort to ensure confessions are given only voluntarily, without duress, compulsion or coercion. Rule 104 also deems confessions under such circumstances are unreliable. The Appellate Division reversed for a new trial requiring the state to prove voluntariness of the confession beyond a reasonable doubt. If you have been charged with a sex crime you face severe consequences including prison, societal scorn and inclusion on the sex offender registry and possible involuntary civil commitment. It is critical you obtain experienced defense counsel to immediately begin to review the prosecution's evidence, speak with witnesses, explore alibis you may have and build a defense. For more information about sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, criminal sexual contact, endangering the welfare of a minor and other sex crimes visit HeatherDarlingLawyer.com. This blog is for informational purposes only and not intended to replace the advice of an attorney.