« It's So Juvenile: Minnesota Case Reveals Difference Between Minnesota And Federal Rule Of Evidence 609(d) | Main | Ex Post Handcuffs: Eighth Circuit Opinion Shows Immediate Impact Of Arizona v. Gant »
June 28, 2009
Expert Commitment: New Jersey Appellate Court Affirms Civil Commitment Based Upon Reasonable Expert Reliance
New Jersey Rule of Evidence 703 indicates that
[t]he facts or data in the particular case upon which an expert bases an opinion or inference may be those perceived by or made known to the expert at or before the hearing. If of a type reasonably relied upon by experts in the particular field in forming opinions or inferences upon the subject, the facts or data need not be admissible in evidence.
And because the experts in In re Civil Commitment of W.X.C., 2009 WL 17505433 (N.J.Super.A.D. 2009), relied upon inadmissible evidence that is nonetheless reasonably relied upon by experts in their field in forming opinions, the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division affirmed W.T.C.'s commitment to the Adult Diagnostic and Treatment Center for sex offender treatment.
[t]he crimes that led to W.X.C.'s...commitment all took place in 1992 when W.X.C. was twenty-five years old. W.X.C. burglarized his first victim's home twice when she was not in the house. On April 17, 1992, W.X.C. entered the home for a third time and, at knifepoint, raped the victim, a young woman. After committing the assault, W.X.C. demanded money and, when the victim had none, stole her VCR. According to various psychological reports, W.X.C. found it sexually exciting to be in the victim's home during the first two burglaries, even while she was not there.
On June 4, 1992, W.X.C. entered another home, this time using a key he had found outside, and raped a woman after telling her he had a gun. W.X.C. then made her drive him to an ATM machine, where he forced her to withdraw and give him approximately $600. He also stole two of the victim's rings. On October 22, 1992, W.X.C. entered a rest home and overpowered a female employee. He dragged her into an empty bedroom and demanded that she perform an oral sex act on him. The police were called and W.X.C. attempted to flee but was apprehended.
At W.X.C.'s civil commitment hearing, only two witnesses testified, Dr. Brian Friedman and Dr. Evan Feibusch.
Dr. Friedman testified that in rendering his opinion, he reviewed “all of the police documents, investigation reports, presentence reports, Judgments of Conviction, [and] victim statements.” He also examined W.X.C.'s statement to police, his prison records, and “reports completed over the years by different evaluators....” Dr. Friedman diagnosed W.X.C. with antisocial personality disorder [and]...paraphilia NOS (non-consenting)....
After he was committed, W.X.C. appealed, claiming, inter alia, that the testimony of these doctors was improperly admitted because it was based upon inadmissible data, such as the "evaluations prepared by non-testifying experts." The court disagreed, finding that their testimony was admissible under New Jersey Rule of Evidence 703 because
[h]ere, the testifying experts relied on reports concerning W.X.C.'s mental health, his criminal history, police reports, and clinical tests in rendering their opinions. Both doctors testified that these sources of information were of the type typically relied upon by experts in performing risk assessment. The trial judge considered the experts' opinions, but did not allow the "wholesale and uncritical admission of prior forensic evaluations."...To the contrary, she properly used the hearsay reports "as background in evaluating the opinions of the ... experts, who testified that they considered these reports in reaching their own diagnoses."
June 28, 2009 | Permalink
TrackBack URL for this entry:
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Expert Commitment: New Jersey Appellate Court Affirms Civil Commitment Based Upon Reasonable Expert Reliance: