2021 IL App (1st) 182049 No. 1-18-2049 Second Division March 30, 2021 ____________________________________________________________________________

IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIRST DISTRICT ____________________________________________________________________________

In re COMMITMENT OF ANDRE ADAMS, ) Appeal from the ) Circuit Court of (The People of the State of Illinois, ) Cook County. ) Petitioner-Appellee, ) ) No. 2011 CR 8000801 v. ) ) Andre Adams, ) ) Respondent-Appellant). ) Honorable ) William G. Gamboney ) Judge, presiding. ____________________________________________________________________________

JUSTICE COBBS delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion. Justices Lavin and Pucinski concurred in the judgment and opinion.

OPINION

¶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 No. 1-18-2049 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.

¶2 I. BACKGROUND

¶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.

¶4 A. Motion in Limine

¶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, 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, 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.

182050

No. 1-18-2049

¶6 B. 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.

¶8 1. Respondent’s Criminal and Disciplinary History

¶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

182051

No. 1-18-2049 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.

¶ 14 2. State’s Expert Witnesses

¶ 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, 182052

No. 1-18-2049

“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 (DSM-5), 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.”

182053

No. 1-18-2049

¶ 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 assaulting or attempting to have sex with nonconsenting adolescent males, (2) he showed a clear

escalation of offending conduct, (3) repeatedly violated a position of trust as a basketball coach, and (4) sought out sex with nonconsenting victims even when consensual sexual activity was available to him. She further noted that, during treatment, respondent admitted numerous other uncharged sexual offenses and “repeatedly reported having fantasies of having complete power and control over victims,” as well as fantasies about anal sex with young boys. Dr. Schechter also diagnosed respondent with “narcissistic personality disorder with antisocial traits,” which entails

“a persuasive pattern of grandiosity, need for admiration, and lack of empathy.” She opined that a personality disorder has the effect of “exacerbat[ing] the paraphilic disorder or mak[ing] it worse” and “makes it much more likely that [respondent] would engage in reckless, criminal, and 182054

No. 1-18-2049 interpersonally exploitative relationship towards others.” She testified that respondent’s disorders were not likely to resolve on their own and the disorders were “congenital or acquired condition

that affects [respondent’s] emotional or volitional capacity and *** predisposes him to engage in future acts of sexual violence.” She explained “emotional or volitional capacity” means that it

“affect[s] the way [respondent] thinks, feels, behaves, or makes choices to behave” and “makes it seriously difficult for him to control his behavior.”

¶ 20 Dr. Schechter also conducted a risk assessment to “determine whether it was substantially probable that [r]espondent would commit an act of sexual violence.” She conducted this assessment by using “actuarial instruments,” such as the STATIC-99R and STATIC-2002R. 2

Respondent received a score of 8 on the STATIC-99R, which placed him in the well-above average

risk category. Respondent received a score of 7 on the STATIC-2002R, which also placed him in the well-above average risk category. Dr. Schechter also utilized the Hare Psychopathy Checklist-

Revised (PCL-R), a personality assessment instrument used to identify traits of psychopathy.

Respondent received a score of 24, which placed him in the fifty-seventh percentile rank. Dr.

Schechter also considered the “dynamic risk factors, protective factors, and [applicable] case specific factors.” She concluded that respondent was “more likely than not” or “substantially probable [that respondent would] commit future acts of sexual violence.”

¶ 21 On cross-examination, Dr. Schechter testified that she was aware that a penile plethysmograph (PPG) was performed on respondent at the TDF. A PPG test is used to measure physical arousal to a variety of sexually explicit images. Respondent was presented with images

182055

No. 1-18-2049 depicting both adults and adolescents in coercive and noncoercive settings. Respondent did not show a significant arousal response to the images. Dr. Schechter was also questioned about hebephilia, which she described as sexual attraction to “post adolescent individuals.” She noted that hebephilia was proposed for inclusion in the DSM-5 but was ultimately not included. Dr.

Schechter explained that OSPD nonconsent is used for paraphilias that are not specified in the DSM-5 and there were perhaps over 100 for the DSM-5 to list. She agreed that any of these unlisted paraphilias could support a diagnosis of OSPD nonconsent, provided there was evidence that it exists and impacts important areas of a person’s functioning for at least 6 months. Dr. Schechter

also acknowledged that some clinicians oppose the use of OSPD nonconsent as a basis of commitment, fearing that it may lead to the act of rape being classified as a mental disorder. She also acknowledged that there is no consensus in the mental health field regarding what constitutes impaired volitional or emotional capacity.

¶ 22 On redirect examination, Dr. Schechter clarified that she did not diagnose respondent with hebephilia but with OSPD nonconsent. She testified that they are “two separate diagnoses,” explaining that “[h]ebephilia is essentially an attraction and sexual acting out with simply post adolescent individuals,” whereas OSPD nonconsent deals with the “arousal to the nonconsensual aspect of the sexual activity.”

¶ 23 Dr. Travis is a clinical psychologist. Since March 2011, he worked for DHS as an SVP evaluator and had conducted over 500 SVP evaluations. In September 2011, he was assigned to evaluate respondent and concluded that respondent qualified as an SVP. In 2014, he updated his evaluation to conform with DSM-5, which had been published. His opinion that respondent met the SVP criteria did not change. Based on DSM-5, Dr. Travis diagnosed respondent with OSPD nonconsent, stating that the “specification on that was that he is sexually attracted to nonconsenting

182056

No. 1-18-2049 persons.” He also diagnosed respondent with narcissistic personality disorder. Dr. Travis evaluated respondent for a third time in 2016, taking into account additional treatment records from the TDF.

¶ 24 Dr. Travis explained that OSPD nonconsent requires a person to have urges or fantasies about having full power or control over sexual partners or about making sexual partners do things they may not want to do. He testified that the person must experience distress or cause harm to others and must engage in nonconsensual sexual acts. In the present case, Dr. Travis opined that

respondent experienced sexual distress which stemmed from “wanting to have [sex] with minor males and because of his religion” and the perceived conflict between his bisexuality and religion.

Dr. Travis also noted that respondent has caused harm to others, citing to respondent’s admissions

during treatment that he has sexually offended up to 31 people. Dr. Travis testified that one of the usual elements of sexual offending is hypersexuality, which was exhibited here. Dr. Travis noted that during treatment, respondent admitted that he regularly masturbated to thoughts of anal sex with minor males, fantasized about having power and control over other people, and offended only against people he was sure would remain silent. Dr. Travis testified that people with OSPD nonconsent gain control of their victims in different ways, such as through intoxication, intimidation, or threats.

¶ 25 Dr. Travis further testified that he could diagnose respondent with OSPD nonconsent even though he had not offended since 2002 because such a disorder was unlikely to go away without treatment. He stated that respondent’s mental disorders were “congenital or acquired conditions” and they “impact his emotional or volitional capacity,” making him “more likely to follow his impulse and urges.” Dr. Travis noted that respondent was 33 at the time of his last offense and that a person’s sexual interests do not change much after their mid-20s. Additionally, respondent had a long pattern of sexual offenses, and respondent himself had said that he did not expect his sexual

182057

No. 1-18-2049

interests to go away. Like Dr. Schechter, Dr. Tavis also performed a risk assessment using the actuarial instruments. The results were the same. Dr. Travis also discussed the results of respondent’s PPG test. He stated that that results did not “mean anything because [respondent was] obviously sexually attracted to something.” He concluded that respondent’s risk of sexual reoffending was “substantially probable.”

¶ 26 On cross-examination, Dr. Travis was questioned about hebephilia. Dr. Travis described it as an attraction to “pubescent children” or people in the approximate age range of 11 to 14. He acknowledged that having a paraphilia or being a serial rapist does not necessarily mean that one’s emotional or volitional capacity is impaired.

¶ 27 3. Respondent’s Expert Witness

¶ 28 Respondent’s expert, Dr. Sillitti, first evaluated respondent in January 2012 after the trial court found probable cause that respondent was an SVP. She diagnosed respondent with

narcissistic personality disorder with antisocial traits. Dr. Sillitti later reevaluated respondent in 2017 to account for new TDF records and the publication of DSM-5. During the interview, respondent revealed the sexual abuse and domestic violence he experienced as a child. Respondent also told Dr. Sillitti that he had about 100 sexual partners and sexual contact with at least 22 adolescents. Dr. Sillitti’s diagnosis of respondent did not change.

¶ 29 Dr. Sillitti opined that respondent’s need to feel important explained his attraction to adolescents, who would not challenge his authority as adults would. She opined that although respondent’s narcissistic personality disorder contributed to his sexual offenses, it did not impair his emotional and volitional capacity. Dr. Sillitti discussed hebephilia, which she defined as an

“attraction to adolescents.” She testified that there was a movement to include hebephilia in the