People v. Moody (In re Moody)

2020 IL App (1st) 190565

178 N.E.3d 198

448 Ill.Dec. 874

IN RE COMMITMENT OF Derrick MOODY

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

v.Derrick Moody, Respondent-Appellant).

No. 1-19-0565

Appellate Court of Illinois, First District, SECOND DIVISION.

Opinion Filed August 4, 2020

Michael R. Johnson, Kate E. Levine, and Ian C. Barnes, of Johnson & Levine LLC, of Chicago, for appellant.

Kwame Raoul, Attorney General, of Chicago (Jane Elinor Notz, Solicitor General, and Michael M. Glick and Nicholas Moeller, Assistant Attorneys General, of counsel), for the People.

PRESIDING JUSTICE FITZGERALD SMITH delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion.

¶ 1 This cause of action stems from proceedings initiated under the Sexually Violent Persons Commitment Act (Act) ( 725 ILCS 207/1 et seq. (West 2018)), which identify individuals who are dangerous due to mental disorders that would predispose them to sexual violence and forces them into treatment for their own good and for the safety of society. After a bench trial, the respondent, Derrick Moody, was found to be a sexually violent person and ordered committed under the Act. On appeal, the respondent contends that the State failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he was a sexually violent person where it did not establish (1) that he currently suffers from a mental disorder that is either congenital or acquired that predisposes him to acts of sexual violence, and (2) that this mental disorder creates a substantial probability that he will commit more acts of sexual violence. The respondent further contends that the trial court denied him his right to a fair trial when it prevented him from cross-examining the State's two expert witnesses about the methodology they used in determining whether the respondent's mental disorder was congenital or acquired. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.

¶ 2 I. BACKGROUND

¶ 3 The record before us reveals the following relevant facts and procedural history. On June 7, 1999, the respondent pleaded guilty to aggravated criminal sexual assault and was sentenced to 30 years' imprisonment in case No. 97 CR 4105. On October 13, 2011, shortly before the respondent was scheduled to be released from prison, the State filed a petition to involuntarily commit him pursuant to the Act. In support of the petition, the State relied on the report of its expert, Dr. John Arroyo, who diagnosed the respondent with a paraphilic disorder using the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4th Edition (DSM-IV). In May 2013, the fifth edition of the DSM was issued (DSM-V). In April 2015, Dr. Arroyo amended his 2011 evaluation to reflect the updated nomenclature of the DSM-V, diagnosing the respondent with other specified paraphilic disorder, sexual interest in nonconsenting partners (OSPD nonconsent) and other specified personality disorder, with antisocial features (antisocial personality disorder ). The State then amended their petition to reflect the updated diagnoses.

¶ 4 On October 29, 2018, the matter eventually proceeded to a bench trial. The State presented testimony from two stipulated experts in the field of clinical forensic psychology, Dr. Arroyo and Dr. Steven Gaskell.

¶ 5 Dr. Arroyo first testified that he is a sex offender evaluator and clinical forensic psychologist employed by Wexford Health Sources, Inc., to conduct sexually violent persons evaluations pursuant to a contract with the Illinois Department of Corrections (IDOC). Since December 2009, Dr. Arroyo has completed 156 sexually violent persons evaluations, during which he has found less than half of the subjects (i.e. 76) to be sexually violent persons, requiring commitment.

¶ 6 According to Dr. Arroyo, an evaluation of a sexually violent person usually begins with an evaluator's receipt of the subject's master file, containing anything with the subject's name, including, police reports, criminal history, previous evaluations, disciplinary history, and medical records. After a review of these materials, the evaluator generally attempts to conduct an interview with the subject of the evaluation. Regardless of whether an interview takes place, the evaluator then performs a risk assessment and writes his report.

¶ 7 Dr. Arroyo acknowledged that, in 2011, he was asked to evaluate the respondent to determine whether he was a sexually violent person under the Act and that, after performing an evaluation, he determined that respondent was. Dr. Arroyo testified that in coming to this conclusion, he reviewed all the materials in the respondent's master file, including his criminal background, social history, and police, medical, disciplinary, and treatment records. Dr. Arroyo further averred that he attempted to interview the respondent on August 17, 2011, at the Logan Correctional Center, but that the respondent declined to participate, explaining that he had already spoken to a prior evaluator and that he believed that the evaluation was just another "way for the State to keep him locked up."

¶ 8 Dr. Arroyo testified that he completed his initial evaluation report on August 23, 2011. He updated that report on April 20, 2015, after the fifth edition of the DSM was published, updating "the names of the diagnoses that had previously been given," based on the new nomenclature. Both reports were introduced into evidence at trial.

¶ 9 Dr. Arroyo testified that in concluding that the respondent was a sexually violent person, who requires commitment, he initially reviewed the respondent's criminal history and, in particular, his two prior felony convictions for sexually violent offenses. Dr. Arroyo testified that, in 1991, the respondent pleaded guilty to attempted aggravated criminal sexual assault and unlawful restraint in case number 91 CR 28304, for which he received a seven-year sentence. According to Dr. Arroyo, in that case, the respondent attacked a cleaning lady in the Sears Tower by grabbing the victim from behind, ripping her clothes off, and attempting to choke her with a towel. The victim kicked the respondent and freed herself, but he again grabbed her, forced her into a conference room, and choked her. The victim ultimately freed herself and fled to another floor for help, where a witness saw her running in only a bra and underwear. The respondent was found hiding under a desk with blood on his hands.

¶ 10 Dr. Arroyo testified that after serving his sentence in that case, in 1997, the respondent again pleaded guilty to aggravated criminal sexual assault, attempted murder, aggravated battery, and robbery, in case number 97 CR 4105, for which he was sentenced to 30 years' imprisonment. In that case, the respondent entered the Merchandise Mart looking for money. After searching several floors, the respondent saw the female victim through an office door and became aroused. He watched her "for a while" and began to rub his penis through his pants. When the victim exited the office to throw out the trash, the respondent repeatedly punched her in the face and choked her until she was unconscious. He then removed her pants and underwear, rubbed his penis on her vagina, and digitally penetrated her.

¶ 11 In addition to reviewing these felony convictions, Dr. Arroyo examined the respondent's arrest records from the 1980s and 1990s. According to these records, the respondent was regularly detained for criminal trespass to property, many of which involved voyeurism in women's restrooms. Dr. Arroyo recalled that one arrest stemmed from the respondent lying on the floor and looking at female victims under restroom stalls, while another resulted from the respondent exposing himself in a women's restroom.

¶ 12 Dr. Arroyo next testified that in concluding that the respondent was a sexually violent person, he also reviewed the respondent's treatment records. According to Dr. Arroyo, the respondent did not participate in any sex offender treatment while in IDOC but first began such treatment in 2011, when he was transferred to the Illinois Department of Human Services (IDHS) Treatment and Detention Facility (TDF). While in treatment at TDF, the respondent admitted that has victimized approximately 276 individuals of both genders (many while in IDOC). Twelve of these incidents involved hands-on contact, and the remainder involved voyeurism.

¶ 13 Based on the respondent's criminal history and treatment records, Dr. Arroyo opined that the respondent exhibited a pattern of escalating behavior, beginning with voyeurism and progressing to violent sexual assault. As Dr. Arroyo explained, the respondent had disclosed while he was in treatment that he initially "had some voyeuristic behaviors in his neighborhood," which were followed by "a separate section of voyeuristic behaviors that occurred downtown" and that the respondent found to be riskier and more dangerous. According to Dr. Arroyo, after this, the respondent additionally began "exposing himself" and then having "thoughts of pulling women into the bushes while he was in the bushes masturbating." The respondent subsequently "attempted to assault a victim" and ultimately "brutally assaulted, physically assaulted and sexually assaulted a woman."

¶ 14 Dr. Arroyo further opined that the respondent's significant history of cocaine abuse correlated to his lack of impulse control. While Dr. Arroyo acknowledged that the respondent had a minimal disciplinary record in IDOC and only "a few" referrals to the behavioral committee at TDF, he opined that IDOC's disciplinary record did not reflect the respondent's own admissions of continued voyeurism while in prison and at most established that the respondent would do well in a "highly structured secure environment."

¶ 15 Based on his review of the respondent's file, and using the nomenclature of the DSM-V, Dr. Arroyo opined that, presently, the respondent suffers from three mental disorders: (1) OSPD nonconsent, (2) antisocial personality disorder, and (3) voyeuristic disorder. Dr. Arroyo...