RECORD IMPOUNDED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court ." Although it is posted on the internet, this opinion is binding only on the parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited . R. 1:36-3.
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION DOCKET NO. A-4043-24
IN THE MATTER OF THE CIVIL COMMITMENT OF M.B.,1 SVP-833-22. _______________________
Submitted May 14, 2026 ‒ Decided July 31, 2026
Before Judges Mawla and Bishop-Thompson.
On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Middlesex County, Docket No. SVP-833-22.
Jennifer N. Sellitti, Public Defender, attorney for appellant M.B. (Michael Denny, Assistant Deputy Public Defender, of counsel and on the brief).
Jennifer Davenport, Attorney General, attorney for respondent State of New Jersey (Sookie Bae-Park, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; Stephen Slocum, Deputy Attorney General, on the brief).
1 We use initials to refer to appellant pursuant to N.J.S.A. 30:4-27.27(c) and Rule 1:38-3(f)(2). M.B. appeals from a judgment ordering his indefinite civil commitment
to the Special Treatment Unit (STU) as a sexually violent predator under the
Sexually Violent Predator Act (SVPA), N.J.S.A. 30:4-27.24 to -27.38. He
contends the State failed to carry its burden he was likely to reoffend if he was
not committed. After reviewing the record, in light of the governing legal
principles, we conclude that the commitment order is supported by substantial
credible evidence and affirm.
I.
M.B. has a history of sexual offenses. In 1980, he was arrested in Florida
for the sexual assault of a ten-year-old girl, whose mother he was in a
relationship with. He was subsequently sentenced to probation. In 1989, he was
convicted in New York for lewd and lascivious acts after soliciting two underage
boys to engage in oral sex. He pleaded no contest and was sentenced to two
years' probation.
In 2002, M.B. was arrested in New Jersey and charged with two counts of
fourth-degree child abuse, N.J.S.A. 9:6-1 and 6-3; two counts of third-degree
endangering the welfare of a child, N.J.S.A. 2C:24-4(a); two counts of second-
degree sexual assault, N.J.S.A. 2C:14-2(b); and four counts of first-degree
aggravated sexual assault, N.J.S.A. 2C:14-2(a). It was alleged M.B. committed
A-4043-24 2 these offenses while staying with the victim's family, beginning when the victim
was five or six years old and continuing until he was eleven.
Approximately two years later, on June 29, 2004, M.B. was found not
guilty by reason of insanity, pursuant to N.J.S.A. 2C:4-8. He was placed on
Krol2 review status and committed to the Ann Klein Forensic Center (AKFC),
where he remained until 2022, and received sexual offender treatment from 2005
until 2013.
On June 29, 2022, M.B. was transferred to the STU following a referral
for civil commitment from AKFC. The State subsequently petitioned for his
involuntary civil commitment pursuant to the SVPA. Commitment hearings
were held on May 22 and July 24, 2025.
At the hearing, the State presented two expert witnesses: forensic
psychiatrist Dr. Roger Harris and clinical psychologist Dr. Paul Dudek. Dr.
Harris conducted two interviews with M.B., reviewed court documents,
psychological evaluations, disciplinary records, and reports from AKFC . M.B.
2 A criminal defendant acquitted by reason of insanity may be involuntarily committed or conditionally released under judicial supervision, with periodic hearings (Krol hearings) to determine whether continued commitment or supervision is warranted, based on the defendant's mental illness and risk of danger to self or other. See State v. Krol, 68 N.J. 236, 255-56 (1975). A person committed under these circumstances is described as on Krol status. A-4043-24 3 denied having any interactions with the boys in 1989 and did not take
responsibility for the remaining sexual offenses. This demonstrated M.B. had
not reduced his risk of reoffending through treatment and appeared "treatment
naive."
Dr. Harris diagnosed M.B. with pedophilic disorder, based on his multiple
offenses against children; borderline personality disorder, due to his fluctuating
moods, cognitions, and impulsive behavior; and substance abuse disorder, given
his three prior convictions of driving while intoxicated. Dr. Harris opined the
pedophilic disorder predisposed M.B. to commit sexual violence of acts.
M.B. incurred disciplinary infractions at AKFC, which were viewed as
possibly having a sexual motive by Dr. Harris. These infractions included
alleged grooming of younger-looking residents, masturbation in view of another
person, and possession of a picture of clothed children that appeared to be cut
from a magazine.
Dr. Harris also noted M.B. scored a two on the Static-99R, the actuarial
tool used to measure risk of sexual recidivism. This score placed him in the
category of individuals considered to be at average risk of committing a sexual
offense following their release. This score reflects various historical factors in
M.B.'s record, including offending while on supervision, failing supervision,
A-4043-24 4 exhibiting remarkable sexual preoccupation, poor self-regulation, poor
cognitive problem solving-skills, and general lifestyle impulsivity.
Dr. Harris testified M.B.'s age of sixty-six was a mitigating factor in
assessing his risk for sexual recidivism. However, he concluded M.B. would
have serious difficulty controlling his behavior, and would be at a high risk of
sexually reoffending if not confined to the STU.
Dr. Dudek likewise concluded M.B. would be a high risk to reoffend if
not confined to the STU. He also testified M.B.'s history showed an ongoing
attraction to prepubescent children, which sometimes involved a caretaker role
around his victims. Dr. Dudek noted M.B. had received offender-specific
treatment at the AKFC; however, he had not developed the skills to reduce his
risk of reoffending.
Dr. Dudek diagnosed M.B. with pedophilia, noting his arousal and
attraction to prepubescent children, as well as other specified personality
disorders with borderline and anti-social traits, and alcohol abuse disorder. He
opined M.B. is predisposed to sexual violence due to his mental or personality
disorder. M.B.'s score of two on the Static-99R and thirteen out of twenty-six
on the Stable-2007 both indicated a "high range" of dynamic risk factors,
including antisociality, poor problem-solving, negative emotionality, deviant
A-4043-24 5 sexual preferences, unstable relationships, lack of empathy, impulsivity, and
non-cooperation with supervision.
M.B. presented the testimony of psychologist Dr. Christopher Lorah , who
interviewed him on five occasions between 2022 and 2025 and reviewed his
treatment records. Dr. Lorah diagnosed M.B. with pedophilic disorder. On the
Static-99R, M.B. received a score of three, placing him in the "average" risk
category for sexual reoffending.
Dr. Lorah opined M.B.'s risk of sexual reoffense would "fall below the
highly likely level given placement at a residential facility." He testified the
risk decreased with M.B.'s age and provided examples of release conditions,
which would mitigate M.B.'s risk: a supervised group home, mandatory group
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
RECORD IMPOUNDED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court ." Although it is posted on the internet, this opinion is binding only on the parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited . R. 1:36-3.
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION DOCKET NO. A-4043-24
IN THE MATTER OF THE CIVIL COMMITMENT OF M.B.,1 SVP-833-22. _______________________
Submitted May 14, 2026 ‒ Decided July 31, 2026
Before Judges Mawla and Bishop-Thompson.
On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Middlesex County, Docket No. SVP-833-22.
Jennifer N. Sellitti, Public Defender, attorney for appellant M.B. (Michael Denny, Assistant Deputy Public Defender, of counsel and on the brief).
Jennifer Davenport, Attorney General, attorney for respondent State of New Jersey (Sookie Bae-Park, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; Stephen Slocum, Deputy Attorney General, on the brief).
1 We use initials to refer to appellant pursuant to N.J.S.A. 30:4-27.27(c) and Rule 1:38-3(f)(2). M.B. appeals from a judgment ordering his indefinite civil commitment
to the Special Treatment Unit (STU) as a sexually violent predator under the
Sexually Violent Predator Act (SVPA), N.J.S.A. 30:4-27.24 to -27.38. He
contends the State failed to carry its burden he was likely to reoffend if he was
not committed. After reviewing the record, in light of the governing legal
principles, we conclude that the commitment order is supported by substantial
credible evidence and affirm.
I.
M.B. has a history of sexual offenses. In 1980, he was arrested in Florida
for the sexual assault of a ten-year-old girl, whose mother he was in a
relationship with. He was subsequently sentenced to probation. In 1989, he was
convicted in New York for lewd and lascivious acts after soliciting two underage
boys to engage in oral sex. He pleaded no contest and was sentenced to two
years' probation.
In 2002, M.B. was arrested in New Jersey and charged with two counts of
fourth-degree child abuse, N.J.S.A. 9:6-1 and 6-3; two counts of third-degree
endangering the welfare of a child, N.J.S.A. 2C:24-4(a); two counts of second-
degree sexual assault, N.J.S.A. 2C:14-2(b); and four counts of first-degree
aggravated sexual assault, N.J.S.A. 2C:14-2(a). It was alleged M.B. committed
A-4043-24 2 these offenses while staying with the victim's family, beginning when the victim
was five or six years old and continuing until he was eleven.
Approximately two years later, on June 29, 2004, M.B. was found not
guilty by reason of insanity, pursuant to N.J.S.A. 2C:4-8. He was placed on
Krol2 review status and committed to the Ann Klein Forensic Center (AKFC),
where he remained until 2022, and received sexual offender treatment from 2005
until 2013.
On June 29, 2022, M.B. was transferred to the STU following a referral
for civil commitment from AKFC. The State subsequently petitioned for his
involuntary civil commitment pursuant to the SVPA. Commitment hearings
were held on May 22 and July 24, 2025.
At the hearing, the State presented two expert witnesses: forensic
psychiatrist Dr. Roger Harris and clinical psychologist Dr. Paul Dudek. Dr.
Harris conducted two interviews with M.B., reviewed court documents,
psychological evaluations, disciplinary records, and reports from AKFC . M.B.
2 A criminal defendant acquitted by reason of insanity may be involuntarily committed or conditionally released under judicial supervision, with periodic hearings (Krol hearings) to determine whether continued commitment or supervision is warranted, based on the defendant's mental illness and risk of danger to self or other. See State v. Krol, 68 N.J. 236, 255-56 (1975). A person committed under these circumstances is described as on Krol status. A-4043-24 3 denied having any interactions with the boys in 1989 and did not take
responsibility for the remaining sexual offenses. This demonstrated M.B. had
not reduced his risk of reoffending through treatment and appeared "treatment
naive."
Dr. Harris diagnosed M.B. with pedophilic disorder, based on his multiple
offenses against children; borderline personality disorder, due to his fluctuating
moods, cognitions, and impulsive behavior; and substance abuse disorder, given
his three prior convictions of driving while intoxicated. Dr. Harris opined the
pedophilic disorder predisposed M.B. to commit sexual violence of acts.
M.B. incurred disciplinary infractions at AKFC, which were viewed as
possibly having a sexual motive by Dr. Harris. These infractions included
alleged grooming of younger-looking residents, masturbation in view of another
person, and possession of a picture of clothed children that appeared to be cut
from a magazine.
Dr. Harris also noted M.B. scored a two on the Static-99R, the actuarial
tool used to measure risk of sexual recidivism. This score placed him in the
category of individuals considered to be at average risk of committing a sexual
offense following their release. This score reflects various historical factors in
M.B.'s record, including offending while on supervision, failing supervision,
A-4043-24 4 exhibiting remarkable sexual preoccupation, poor self-regulation, poor
cognitive problem solving-skills, and general lifestyle impulsivity.
Dr. Harris testified M.B.'s age of sixty-six was a mitigating factor in
assessing his risk for sexual recidivism. However, he concluded M.B. would
have serious difficulty controlling his behavior, and would be at a high risk of
sexually reoffending if not confined to the STU.
Dr. Dudek likewise concluded M.B. would be a high risk to reoffend if
not confined to the STU. He also testified M.B.'s history showed an ongoing
attraction to prepubescent children, which sometimes involved a caretaker role
around his victims. Dr. Dudek noted M.B. had received offender-specific
treatment at the AKFC; however, he had not developed the skills to reduce his
risk of reoffending.
Dr. Dudek diagnosed M.B. with pedophilia, noting his arousal and
attraction to prepubescent children, as well as other specified personality
disorders with borderline and anti-social traits, and alcohol abuse disorder. He
opined M.B. is predisposed to sexual violence due to his mental or personality
disorder. M.B.'s score of two on the Static-99R and thirteen out of twenty-six
on the Stable-2007 both indicated a "high range" of dynamic risk factors,
including antisociality, poor problem-solving, negative emotionality, deviant
A-4043-24 5 sexual preferences, unstable relationships, lack of empathy, impulsivity, and
non-cooperation with supervision.
M.B. presented the testimony of psychologist Dr. Christopher Lorah , who
interviewed him on five occasions between 2022 and 2025 and reviewed his
treatment records. Dr. Lorah diagnosed M.B. with pedophilic disorder. On the
Static-99R, M.B. received a score of three, placing him in the "average" risk
category for sexual reoffending.
Dr. Lorah opined M.B.'s risk of sexual reoffense would "fall below the
highly likely level given placement at a residential facility." He testified the
risk decreased with M.B.'s age and provided examples of release conditions,
which would mitigate M.B.'s risk: a supervised group home, mandatory group
and individual sex offender therapy, parole supervision, drug testing, and
ongoing contact with the SVPA treatment team.
On July 24, 2025, the trial court found the State had proven by clear and
convincing evidence M.B. met the criteria for civil commitment under the SVPA
and ordered his indefinite commitment to the STU. It found both State expert
witnesses credible, and their testimony was consistent with supporting reports.
The court concluded M.B. had not meaningfully participated in the sex offender
A-4043-24 6 treatment, and as a result, had not benefitted from it. It further found M.B. was
highly likely to sexually reoffend if not committed.
The court noted Dr. Lorah testified credibly that, without conditions, M.B.
is "substantially unable to control his sexually harmful behavior ," and was not
persuaded by the testimony suggesting M.B. could be safely managed in the
community with conditions. It determined a conditional discharge plan would
not sufficiently mitigate M.B.'s risk.
On appeal, M.B. presents the following contention for our consideration:
THE COMMITMENT COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE COMMIT[T]ED M.B. BECAUSE THE STATE FAILED TO PROVE BY CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE THAT HE WAS HIGHLY LIKELY TO SEXUALLY REOFFEND IF NOT CIVILLY COMMITTED.
Our review of a trial court's determination for civil commitment under the
SVPA is "extremely narrow." In re Civ. Commitment of R.F., 217 N.J. 152, 174
(2014) (quoting In re D.C., 146 N.J. 31, 58 (1996)). We "should not modify a
trial court's determination either to commit or release an individual unless 'the
record reveals a clear mistake,'" and there is a clear abuse of discretion. Id. at
175 (quoting D.C., 146 N.J. at 58); see also In re Civ. Commitment of A.Y., 458
N.J. Super. 147, 166 (App. Div. 2019). Courts that hear civil commitment cases
are considered "specialists" and "their expertise in the subject" is entitled to a
A-4043-24 7 "special deference." R.F., 217 N.J. at 174; see also In re Civ. Commitment of
J.S., 467 N.J. Super. 291, 303 (App. Div. 2021).
"The appropriate inquiry is to canvass the significant amount of expert
testimony in the record and determine whether the lower courts' findings were
clearly erroneous." D.C., 146 N.J. at 58-59. If a "trial court's findings are
supported by 'sufficient credible evidence present in the record,' those findings
should not be disturbed." R.F., 217 N.J. at 175 (quoting State v. Johnson, 42
N.J. 146, 162 (1964)).
The SVPA permits the State to involuntarily commit individuals convicted
of a sexually violent offense "who 'suffer[] from a mental abnormality or
personality disorder that makes the person likely to engage in acts of sexual
violence if not confined in a secure facility for control, care[,] and treatment.'"
Id. at 173 (quoting N.J.S.A. 30:4-27.26). The State must establish:
(1) that the individual has been convicted of a sexually violent offense; (2) that [they] suffer[] from a mental abnormality or personality disorder; and (3) that as a result of [their] psychiatric abnormality or disorder, "it is highly likely that the individual will not control [their] sexually violent behavior and will reoffend."
[In re Civ. Commitment of W.W., 245 N.J. 438, 450 (2021) (quoting In re Civ. Commitment of D.Y., 218 N.J. 359, 380-81 (2014)).]
A-4043-24 8 At the commitment hearing, M.B. stipulated to the first prong—he had
been acquitted by reason of insanity of a qualifying offense—and to the second
prong, acknowledging he suffered from pedophilic disorder, which constituted
a mental abnormality under the SVPA statute. Therefore, our focus on appeal
is the third prong: whether M.B. poses a risk of reoffending if not confined to
the STU.
We are satisfied the court carefully considered the experts' testimony and
documentary evidence. In doing so, it determined the State demonstrated M.B.
"is and remains a high risk to reoffend . . . and requires additional treatment to
be able to embrace and develop proper coping mechanisms." Based on our
review of the record, we conclude there is substantial credible evidence in the
record to support these findings. We discern nothing in the court's findings or
analysis to be clearly erroneous.
Affirmed.
A-4043-24 9