State v. Little
| Decision Date | 18 January 1978 |
| Docket Number | No. 41271,41271 |
| Parties | STATE of Nebraska, Appellee, v. Charles LITTLE, Appellant. |
| Court | Nebraska Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court
1. The Equal Protection Clause does not prohibit a state from classifying the sex offender in a special category and providing special procedures for dealing with a person in this group.
2. Equal protection does not require that all persons be dealt with identically, but it does require that the distinction made have some relevance to the purpose for which the classification is made.
3. The Sexual Sociopath Act, sections 29-2901 to 29-2910, R.R.S.1943, proceeds on the premise that the sexual sociopath is neither normal nor legally insane and on the idea that the commission of sex crimes is evidence of a mental disorder which should be treated, if found treatable.
4. There are differing purposes for incarceration under the habitual offender law and sexual sociopath law. For the habitual offender, the purpose is punishment only; for the sexual sociopath, the purpose is treatment, if possible, and punishment is only incidental.
5. The significant factor operating to permit differing treatment of those classified as mentally ill dangerous persons and those classified as sexual sociopaths, is the criminal conviction of the latter class.
6. The Legislature could have reasonably determined that the public health and safety required that those previously convicted on a sex offense and deemed untreatable may be appropriately held in the Nebraska Penal and Correctional Complex rather than in the regional center due to the fact of the prior conviction of the crime.
7. A status offense is one where there is no actus reus present and the imposition of any punishment for such an offense violates the cruel and unusual punishment prohibition of the Eighth Amendment.
8. The punitive aspect of the Sexual Sociopath Act is not merely limited to punishment for a status, but relates to an affirmative act or actus reus.
9. Upon the initial determination by the court of untreatability under section 29-2903(3), R.R.S.1943, a sexual sociopath is confined in the Nebraska Penal and Correctional Complex indefinitely without treatment.
10. Indefinite confinement under the Sexual Sociopath Act may well be a life sentence.
11. A proceeding for investigation and for commitment of an alleged sexual sociopath is civil in nature.
12. The nature and duration of civil commitment must bear some reasonable relation to the purpose for which an individual is committed.
13. Despite the labeling of initial commitment under the Sexual Sociopath Act as civil, the act's provision for possible life confinement without any provisions for treatability or review of treatability makes the statute penal in nature.
14. A provision for treatment or review of treatability is a necessary part of a statutory scheme involving sexual sociopaths.
15. An annual evaluation by qualified professional personnel must be made of each sexual sociopath housed in the penal complex and an annual review of treatability be made by the District Court from which such individual was originally committed.
Michael D. Gooch, Omaha, for appellant.
Paul L. Douglas, Atty. Gen., Jerold V. Fennel, Asst. Atty. Gen., Lincoln, for appellee.
Heard before WHITE, C. J., and SPENCER, BOSLAUGH, McCOWN, CLINTON, BRODKEY and WHITE, JJ.
The defendant, a 58-year-old male, was charged with indecent exposure and fondling the sexual organs of a minor boy under the age of 16 years. Following pleas of guilty to each count by the defendant, and at defendant's request, proceedings were initiated under sections 29-2901 to 29-2910, R.R.S.1943, the Nebraska Sexual Sociopath Act. The trial court, pursuant to that statute, suspended further proceedings and ordered an examination of the defendant. The court found the defendant to be an untreatable sexual sociopath and committed him to the Nebraska Penal and Correctional Complex.
The medical and criminal history of the defendant-appellant was introduced at the trial. The defendant had twice been convicted and committed in other states for sexual offenses involving minor children. It is not necessary to detail the factual situation of this case except to state that the evidence that the defendant is a sexual sociopath is overwhelming.
The defendant does not allege error in the proceedings or in the determination that he is a sexual sociopath. His complaint is focused on the place of confinement and the uncertain duration of the confinement under the sexual sociopath statutes. The defendant's challenge to the constitutionality of the statutes rests on two alternative bases: (1) The indefinite term of commitment to the Nebraska penal complex was an enhancement of defendant's sentence which violates the defendant's right to equal protection of the law; and (2) an order of commitment to the Nebraska penal complex of a person who is determined to be a sexual sociopath for an indefinite period is in violation of the Constitution's clause against cruel and unusual punishment since it is punishment for a status or because it is disproportionate to the nature of the offense.
Before we proceed to address ourselves to defendant's arguments, we note that the constitutionality of the Sexual Sociopath Act was upheld by this court against a previous challenge in State v. Irwin, 191 Neb. 169, 214 N.W.2d 595, 609. In Irwin, it was noted the defendant attacked the statute generally: "The claim of the defendant that the sexual sociopath act * * *, sections 29-2901 to 29-2910, R.S.Supp., 1972, is unconstitutional is lacking in specificity, except the inferential claim made in argument that the commitment constitutes cruel and unusual punishment." Our holding in Irwin as to constitutionality was limited to a discussion of the act as to procedural due process, the indefinite term of commitment, and the status of time of confinement spent under the act in relation to the sentence that could be imposed for the crime which triggered the proceedings. Here, the defendant raises specific issues of constitutionality that were not raised or decided in State v. Irwin, supra.
The defendant's equal protection argument is two-pronged. First, he claims he is denied equal protection because his sentence is enhanced under the sexual sociopath statute rather than the habitual offender statute. A person convicted of a third felony may have his punishment enhanced under the terms of sections 29-2221 and 29-2222, R.R.S.1943, as a habitual criminal. The theory is that defendant's past crimes operate to aggravate his guilt to justify heavier penalties. See State v. Losieau, 184 Neb. 178, 166 N.W.2d 406. The defendant concedes the constitutionality of the habitual offender statutes. See, State v. Martin, 190 Neb. 212, 206 N.W.2d 856; Oyler v. Boles, 368 U.S. 448, 82 S.Ct. 501, 7 L.Ed.2d 446. The defendant points out that while the habitual offender may have his penalty enhanced to a stated number of years, the sexual sociopath found to be untreatable may have the statutory penalty further increased, in effect, to a life sentence without possibility of parole. Thus, the defendant says since this condition is indistinguishable from the other, the differing treatment is violative of equal protection.
The placement of the sexual sociopath in a distinct category is a permissible classification. In State ex rel. Pearson v. Probate Court, 205 Minn. 545, 287 N.W. 297, an alleged sexual psychopath, committed under Minnesota law, unsuccessfully challenged the sex offender law on an equal protection basis. The Minnesota Supreme Court held that the Equal Protection Clause did not prohibit a state from classifying the sex offender in a special category, and providing special procedures for dealing with a person in this group where the behavior of the members showed that they were actually dangerous and incapable of controlling their sexual impulses. On appeal, the United States Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Minnesota Court. Minnesota ex rel. Pearson v. Probate Court, 309 U.S. 270, 60 S.Ct. 523, 84 L.Ed. 744.
Equal protection does not require that all persons be dealt with identically, but it does require that the distinction made have some relevance to the purpose for which the classification is made. Baxstrom v. Herold, 383 U.S. 107, 86 S.Ct. 760, 15 L.Ed.2d 620. The question becomes whether the distinction of differing treatment made by the Legislature is reasonable in that it is relevant to the purpose of the initial classification. We hold that classification of sexual sociopaths apart from habitual criminals and the differing disposition it generates is a reasonable one. The classifications of habitual criminals and sexual sociopaths encompass groups of individuals with distinct characteristics. Habitual criminal laws provide that the repetition of criminal conduct aggravates the guilt and justifies greater punishment. State v. Losieau, supra. The sexual sociopath statutes, sections 29-2901 to 29-2910, R.R.S.1943, proceed on the premise that the sexual sociopath is neither normal nor legally insane and on the idea that the commission of sex crimes is evidence of a mental disorder which should be treated if found treatable. The statutes provide that the offender, the sexual sociopath, shall be treated and held at the facility for treatment. If found to be untreatable and dangerous, the sexual sociopath is held at the Nebraska Penal and Correctional Complex separate from other prisoners. The purposes of the habitual offender law and the sexual sociopath law are alike in that both are for the protection of society. On the one hand, the protection is from a dangerous criminal offender and on the other, from a person who is found to be dangerous to society by reason of his sexual proclivities. However, differing purposes are emphasized for the purposes of the incarceration. For...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
George v. Parratt
...there is no right to good time credit where, as here, the purpose of incarceration is not punishment but treatment. Cf. State v. Little, 199 Neb. 772, 261 N.W.2d 847, 851, Appeal dismissed, 439 U.S. 809, 99 S.Ct. 67, 58 L.Ed.2d 101 (1978); State v. Irwin, supra, 191 Neb. 169, 214 N.W.2d Mor......
-
In re Interest of J.R.
...a jail or correctional facility bears a rational relationship to the purpose of SOCA.88 A similar argument was rejected by our court in State v. Little.89 In Little, the defendant argued that Nebraska's sociopath laws were violative of equal protection because incurably mentally ill, danger......
-
Parker v. Roth
...but it does require that the distinction may have some relevance to the purpose for which the classification is made. State v. Little, 199 Neb. 772, 261 N.W.2d 847. With these various principles in mind we examine the provisions of Article I, section 9, of the Nebraska Constitution as amend......
-
State v. Sell
...the Sexual Sociopath Act. See State v. Irwin, 191 Neb. 169, 214 N.W.2d 595; State v. Wells, 197 Neb. 584, 249 N.W.2d 904; State v. Little, 199 Neb. 772, 261 N.W.2d 847; and State v. Shaw, 202 Neb. 765, 277 N.W.2d The appeal herein involves three separate cases which were consolidated for he......