People v. Lingle (In re Lingle)

2018 IL App (4th) 170404

103 N.E.3d 564

IN RE COMMITMENT OF Lawrence LINGLE

(The People of the State of Illinois, Petitioner–Appellee,

v.Lawrence Lingle, Respondent–Appellant).

NO. 4–17–0404

Appellate Court of Illinois, Fourth District.

FILED April 16, 2018

Rick Verticchio, of Verticchio Law Office, of Gillespie, for appellant.

Lisa Madigan, Attorney General, of Chicago (David L. Franklin, Solicitor General, and Michael M. Glick and Daniel B. Lewin, Assistant Attorneys General, of counsel), for the People.

JUSTICE STEIGMANN delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion.

¶ 1 In 1966, respondent, Lawrence Lingle, was convicted of rape. In 1982, respondent was convicted of rape and deviate sexual assault. In February 2004, shortly before respondent's prison term ended, the State filed a sexually violent person petition against respondent. See 725 ILCS 207/15 (West 2004). From February 2004 to April 2015, this matter did not proceed to trial because of delays that were caused or approved by respondent.

¶ 2 In April 2015, respondent filed a motion seeking the appointment of a second expert witness. Respondent argued that a second expert witness was necessary because the State would be using two expert witnesses . In May 2015, the trial court denied this motion.

¶ 3 In April 2017, respondent filed a motion in limine . Because respondent conceded that he was convicted of a sexually violent offense, he sought to prevent the State from mentioning the underlying facts of his convictions during opening statements. Later that month, the trial court denied this motion.

¶ 4 Later in April 2017, the jury found respondent to be a sexually violent person. In May 2017, the trial court ordered that respondent remain in the custody of the Department of Human Services until he is no longer a sexually violent person.

¶ 5 Respondent appeals, arguing that the trial court erred by (1) denying his request for an additional expert witness and (2) denying his motion in limine . Respondent also argues that the jury's verdict was "against the manifest weight of the evidence." We disagree and affirm.

¶ 6 I. BACKGROUND

¶ 7 A. The Sexually Violent Person Petition

¶ 8 In 1966, respondent was convicted of rape. In that case, respondent broke into a residence, threatened a woman with a knife, and raped her. The trial court sentenced defendant to 10 to 30 years in prison.

¶ 9 In 1982, respondent was convicted of rape and deviate sexual assault. In that case, respondent broke into a family's home, threatened the family with a knife, tied them up, raped the mother, raped her 16–year–old daughter, and raped a developmentally disabled adult. The trial court sentenced defendant to 40 years in prison.

¶ 10 In August 2002, respondent was placed on mandatory supervised release. Less than a month later, respondent's supervised release was revoked because he sexually assaulted his elderly and blind relative.

¶ 11 In February 2004, shortly before respondent's prison term ended, the State filed a sexually violent person petition against respondent. See id. From February 2004 to April 2015, this matter did not proceed to trial because of delays that were caused or approved by respondent.

¶ 12 B. The Relevant Procedural History

¶ 13 1. The Motion for a Second Expert Witness

¶ 14 In April 2015, respondent filed a motion seeking the appointment of a second expert witness, contending that a second expert witness was required because the State would be using two expert witnesses. In May 2015, the trial court denied this motion.

¶ 15 2. The Motion in Limine

¶ 16 In April 2017, respondent filed a motion in limine that sought to prevent the State from mentioning the underlying facts of his convictions during opening statements. Respondent noted that the State was required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that (1) he was convicted of a sexually violent offense, (2) he has a mental disorder, and (3) the mental disorder makes it substantially probable that he will engage in acts of sexual violence. 725 ILCS 207/5(f) (West 2016). Respondent conceded that he was convicted of a sexually violent offense and argued that, because he conceded this first element, the only purpose of mentioning the underlying facts would be to inflame the passions of the jury and deny him a fair trial. In April 2017, the trial court denied his motion.

¶ 17 C. The Jury Trial

¶ 18 In April 2017, respondent's case proceeded to a jury trial. During opening statements, the State previewed the expected testimony of its two expert witnesses. This preview included an in-depth discussion of the underlying facts of respondent's criminal convictions.

¶ 19 1. The State's Evidence

¶ 20 The State introduced into evidence respondent's convictions for deviate sexual assault and rape. The State also introduced the expert testimony of Dr. Melissa Weldon–Padera and Dr. David Suire.

¶ 21 Weldon–Padera, a clinical psychologist and sex offender evaluator, testified to a reasonable degree of psychological certainty that respondent was a sexually violent person. She diagnosed respondent with the mental disorder of being sexually aroused by nonconsenting persons. She further testified that this condition made it substantially probable that respondent would commit future acts of sexual violence. Weldon–Padera testified there was no medical evidence supporting respondent's claim that he was unable to maintain an erection.

¶ 22 She based her conclusions on respondent's offense history, police reports, court records, medical records, victim statements, and other government records. Weldon–Padera especially relied upon the violent nature of respondent's previous crimes. For example, Weldon–Padera testified that she relied upon respondent's 1966 conviction for rape in which he "broke into the victim's home, confined or held her against her will, threatened her with a knife, struck and beat her on the head and body, tied her up, tied her to the bed, cut off her clothing and raped her." She also relied on his 1982 convictions for rape and deviate sexual assault in which he broke into a home, confined three women against their will, gagged them, threatened them with a knife, and raped them. Weldon–Padera further relied upon respondent's admission to deviate sexual assault where he choked and raped a fellow inmate. Weldon–Padera testified that she relied upon respondent's violent sexual history "[b]ecause research shows that a history of sex offending is an important factor in sexual recidivism, and also shows [an] overall pattern of sex offending behavior over time."

¶ 23 The State then introduced the expert testimony of Suire, a clinical psychologist and a sex offender evaluator. Suire testified to a reasonable degree of psychological certainty that respondent was substantially probable to commit future acts of sexual violence. Suire diagnosed respondent with (1) "specified paraphilic disorder, sexually attracted to non-consenting males and females in a controlled setting" and (2) antisocial personality disorder. Suire testified that these disorders made it substantially probable that respondent would engage in future acts of sexual violence.

¶ 24 In forming his opinion, Suire especially relied upon respondent's criminal and medical history. Suire took particular notice that respondent committed several violent offenses at a young age, was accused of raping individuals while in jail, and sexually assaulted individuals while on supervised release. For example, Suire testified that he relied upon respondent's 1966 conviction where he "apparently picked a home at random, entered the home with a knife, tied the woman in the home up, *** and proceeded to sexually assault her." Suire also considered respondent's 1982 conviction where he broke into a family's home, raped the mother, raped a 16–year–old girl, and raped a 21–year–old disabled adult. Suire found it particularly relevant that respondent tied up his victims and threatened them with a knife. Suire further testified that he also considered other events such as respondent's rape of a fellow prisoner.

¶ 25 Suire further testified that respondent's advanced age and physical health were not protective factors because of his history of seeking vulnerable victims. He testified that respondent's claim that he could no longer maintain an erection was not a mitigating factor.

¶ 26 2. The Respondent's Evidence

¶ 27 Respondent introduced the expert testimony of Dr. Luis Rosell, a forensic psychologist. Rosell testified that he did not diagnose respondent with a mental disorder. Rosell further testified that respondent was no longer a sexually violent person. In reaching this conclusion, Rosell relied upon respondent's advanced age and his claim that he could no longer maintain an erection.

¶ 28 D. The Jury's Verdict

¶ 29 In April 2017, the jury found respondent to be a sexually violent person, and in May 2017, the trial court ordered that respondent remain in the custody of the Department of Human Services until he is no longer a sexually violent person.

¶ 30 This appeal followed.

¶ 31 II. ANALYSIS

¶ 32 Respondent appeals, arguing that the trial court erred by (1) denying his request for an additional expert witness and (2) denying his motion in limine . Respondent also argues that the jury's verdict was "against the manifest weight of the evidence." We address these arguments in turn.

¶ 33 A. The Number of Expert Witnesses

¶ 34 Respondent argues that the trial court erred by denying his motion for a second expert witness. Respondent argues a second expert witness was necessary because the State had two expert witnesses. We disagree.

¶ 35 1. The Applicable Statute

¶ 36 The Sexually Violent Persons Commitment Act (Act) states that "[w]henever the person who is the subject of the petition is required to submit to an examination under this Act, he or she may retain experts or professional persons to perform an examination." 725 ILCS 207/25(e) (West 2016). The Act further provides as follows:

"If the person is indigent,

...