People v. Adams (In re Adams)
| Decision Date | 30 March 2021 |
| Docket Number | 1-18-2049 |
| Citation | 2021 IL App (1st) 182049,191 N.E.3d 107,455 Ill.Dec. 148 |
| Parties | IN RE COMMITMENT OF Andre ADAMS, (The People of the State of Illinois, Petitioner-Appellee, v. Andre Adams, Respondent-Appellant). |
| Court | United States Appellate Court of Illinois |
Joseph G. Howard, of Law Offices of Joseph G. Howard, P.C., of Chicago, for appellant.
Kwame Raoul, Attorney General, of Chicago (Jane Elinor Notz, Solicitor General, and Michael M. Glick, Joshua M. Schneider, and Aaron M. Williams, Assistant Attorneys General, of counsel), for the People.
¶ 1 Respondent-Appellant, Andre Adams, appeals from his judgment of commitment as a "sexually violent person" (SVP) under the Sexually Violent Persons Commitment Act (Act) ( 725 ILCS 207/1 et seq. (West 2010)). On appeal, respondent argues that this court should reverse the judgment because (1) pursuant to Frye v. United States , 293 F. 1013 (D.C. Cir. 1923), a hearing was required to establish that respondent's diagnosis was valid and generally accepted in the scientific community and (2) there was insufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that respondent is an SVP. For the following reasons, we affirm.
¶ 3 In 2005, respondent was convicted of criminal sexual assault. Later in 2011, prior to respondent becoming eligible for mandatory supervised release, the State sought to have the respondent committed as an SVP under the Act. The trial court determined that there was probable cause to believe that respondent was an SVP, and the matter proceeded to a jury trial on May 8, 2018.
¶ 5 Prior to trial, respondent filed a motion in limine requesting the court to bar the State's experts from testifying as to his diagnosis of a paraphilia
. Relying on In re Detention of New , 2013 IL App (1st) 111556, 372 Ill.Dec. 677, 992 N.E.2d 519, respondent argued that the diagnosis of paraphilia by the State's experts was, in essence, a diagnosis of hebephilia that required a Frye hearing because it was not generally accepted within the scientific community. The trial court denied the motion. Citing to our supreme court's subsequent decision in In re Detention of New , 2014 IL 116306, 386 Ill.Dec. 643, 21 N.E.3d 406, the trial court found that a Frye hearing was not required because respondent was not diagnosed with hebephilia but was instead diagnosed with "other specified paraphilic disorder, nonconsenting males, non-specific type," which was generally accepted in the scientific community.1 Respondent filed a motion for reconsideration, which the court denied. The case then proceeded to jury trial.
¶ 7 Three expert witnesses testified at trial: Dr. Alison Schechter and Dr. Richard Travis for the State and Dr. Romita Sillitti for respondent. Respondent elected not to testify. All three experts considered respondent's criminal history, Department of Corrections (DOC) disciplinary records, and treatment at the Department of Human Services’ (DHS) treatment and detention facility (TDF). Dr. Schechter, Dr. Travis, and Dr. Sillitti conducted clinical interviews of respondent in March 2011, September 2011, and January 2012, respectively.
¶ 9 In 1993, two boys who were 15-years-old, reported to police that respondent, then 23 years old, performed oral sex on them. Respondent was charged with two counts of criminal sexual abuse, which were ultimately dismissed.
¶ 10 In 1994, respondent, then 25 years old, was charged with two counts of child abduction. During that incident, he approached two boys, ages 13 and 15, and convinced them to come to his house under the guise of recruiting them for a basketball team he coached. At his house, respondent approached the boys individually and offered them money in return for allowing him to perform oral sex on them. One of the boys initially agreed but then hesitated when respondent asked if he was still willing. The boy said he had to leave, and respondent let him go. Respondent then asked the other boy who also refused. Respondent pled guilty to two counts of child abduction and was sentenced to a year in prison.
¶ 11 The experts also considered respondent's charge of indecent solicitation in the years 1999-2000. Respondent was 30 years old at that time, and the victims were three 16-year-old males who knew him as a basketball coach. On several occasions between December 1999 and February 2000, respondent had the victims over to his house, where he offered them money to masturbate for him and to allow him to perform oral sex on them. The victims refused and left the premises. Respondent pled guilty to indecent solicitation and was sentenced to 3 years in prison.
¶ 12 Respondent's most recent arrest for sexual misconduct was in 2002, which was designated by the experts as the index or predicate offense. Respondent, then 33 years old, approached a 14-year-old male victim on the street and told him that he was recruiting for a basketball team. Respondent and the victim then went to respondent's home, where respondent gave him six shots of gin, rendering him intoxicated. Respondent encouraged the victim to expose his penis, which respondent briefly touched. Respondent left the room and the victim fell asleep, but the victim later awoke to find his pants removed and respondent inserting his penis into the victim's rectum. The victim repeatedly told respondent to stop, but respondent continued. Respondent also performed oral sex and had the victim perform oral and anal sex acts on him. Respondent was charged with numerous counts of criminal sexual assault and sexual abuse. He pled guilty to one count of criminal sexual assault and was sentenced to 10 years in the DOC.
¶ 13 The experts also considered respondent's 1994 conviction for unlawful use of a firearm and a 1997 conviction for possession of a controlled substance, as well as his disciplinary history while he was incarcerated. For instance, in 2001, respondent was disciplined by the DOC for touching another inmate's penis without consent and, in 2008, when respondent made sexual comments to another inmate.
¶ 15 Dr. Schechter is a clinical and forensic psychologist, licensed to evaluate and treat sex offenders. She had completed about 62 pretrial SVP evaluations and two posttrial SVP evaluations throughout her career. In March 2011, she evaluated respondent at the Western Illinois Correctional Center. The evaluation process consisted of a clinical interview, a risk assessment, "formulating an opinion and then writing a report." The purpose of the clinical interview was to obtain information about the offender's background and his "sexual offending history," as well as "get a sense of the offender's thoughts, attitudes, and beliefs." After completing her evaluation, Dr. Schechter concluded that respondent was an SVP. She diagnosed him with "paraphilia
not otherwise specified nonconsenting persons" and "personality disorder not otherwise specified with antisocial features."
¶ 16 Later in July 2014, she updated respondent's diagnosis to conform with the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th Edition "(American Psychiatric Association, Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th Edition, DSM-5 (2013)), which had been published in 2013. She explained that the DSM-5 was "a standard authoritative reference manual used by mental health professionals that outlines and describes the various mental disorders." She found that respondent "continued to meet [the] criteria" for an SVP and diagnosed respondent with "other specified paraphilic disorder nonconsenting males in a controlled environment" and "other specified personality disorder with antisocial features." Dr. Schechter noted that it was acceptable practice in the psychology field to update evaluations.
¶ 17 In April 2017, Dr. Schechter issued a new report. She noted that at the time of her initial evaluation, she only had records of respondent's time at the DOC. However, at the time of her 2017 evaluation, she had additional records from TDF that "helped to clarify [respondent's] diagnosis." She diagnosed respondent with "other specified paraphilic disorder nonconsenting males nonexclusive type in a controlled environment" (OSPD nonconsent) and "narcissistic personality disorder." The "nonexclusive" specifier indicates that respondent is not exclusively attracted to "nonconsenting adolescent males." The "specifier in a controlled environment" applies to "individuals who are living in an institutional setting where opportunit[ies] to engage in sexual activity with a nonconsenting victim are restricted."
¶ 18 Dr. Schechter stated that the term "paraphilia
denotes any intent and persistent sexual interest other than sexual interest in genital stimulation or preparatory fondling with penis with physically mature consenting human partners." According to Schechter, a paraphilia constitutes a disorder when it causes distress for the individual or harm to others. The "category other specified paraphilic disorder," on the other hand, applies where "symptoms that are characteristic of a paraphilic disorder *** predominate but do not meet the specific criteria for any of the eight disorders that are specifically listed in the paraphilic disorder diagnostic class." Additionally, the symptoms last for a period of at least six months.
¶ 19 Dr. Schechter testified that respondent met the diagnostic criteria for OSPD nonconsent because his conduct showed an interest in "sexual activity with adolescent males who are unwilling to engage in sexual activity with him." Additionally, respondent satisfied this interest in a way that harmed others or caused a risk of harm to others. Dr. Schechter opined that the sexual interest was recurrent and intense because (1) respondent had been repeatedly incarcerated for sexually...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Brown (In re Brown)
...courts have consistently held that OSPD nonconsent2 is generally accepted within the scientific community. See In re Commitment of Adams , 2021 IL App (1st) 182049, ¶ 56, 455 Ill.Dec. 148, 191 N.E.3d 107 ; In re Commitment of Walker , 2014 IL App (2d) 130372, ¶ 74, 385 Ill.Dec. 647, 19 N.E.......