Mr. Wright, at age 26, was convicted of lewd acts upon a 14 year-old girl. Then at age 30, Wright committed lewd acts upon two more girls, one 14 and one 15. At age 36, Wright engaged in oral copulation with a 17 year old girl.
Upon his release from prison, the State sought to declare Wright a sexually violent predator (SVP) and civilly commit him for the rest of his life. A bench trial was held.
The State's star witness was one Dr. Musacco. Musacco opined that Wright suffered from hebephilia, a controversial disorder where a person is attracted to pubescent kids, not pre-pubescent (pedophilia) and not post-pubescent (is this a disorder?). Musacco testified that the diagnoses required knowing more than the victim's age since people mature at different ages (as a former 13 year-old male I can attest to this fact). However, Musacco had no knowledge of the physical development of any of the victims. Accordingly, Musacco waffled on whether the diagnosis was justified, couching the opinion on the "assumption" that the victims were physically pubescent.
The trial court accepted this tripe and Wright appealed. The Second District reverses.
To justify an SVP commitment, the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that [1] Wright committed a sexually violent offense against two or more victims (check), [2] Wright has a diagnosed mental disorder, and [3] the disorder makes him likely to engage in sexually violent criminal behavior. The problem is number two. Musacco diagnoses Wright with hebephilia, but acknowledges that the diagnosis is dependent upon information Musacco didn't have, the physical characteristics of the victims.
This is too much for the panel, which while acknowledging the deference traditionally given to experts, cannot ignore the fact that Musacco had no legitimate factual basis upon which to rely. Musacco admitted that 14 year-old girls may appear pubescent or post-pubescent, and that it is impossible to know which absent some evidence of their appearance at the relevant time.
Because Musacco's opinion was supported by assumption, not fact, the verdict is reversed for insufficient evidence.
No comments:
Post a Comment