from the Circuit Court of Du Page County. No. 07-MR-683
Honorable Paul M. Fullerton, Judge, Presiding.
Attorneys for Appellant: William G. Worobec, of Law Office of
William G. Worobec, P.C., of Wheaton, for appellant.
Attorneys for Appellee: Lisa Madigan, Attorney General, of
Chicago (David L. Franklin, Solicitor General, and Michael M.
Glick and Lindsay Beyer Payne, Assistant Attorneys General,
of counsel), for the People.
JUSTICE McLAREN delivered the judgment of the court, with
opinion. Justices Jorgensen and Spence concurred in the
judgment and opinion.
1 Respondent, Samuel Rutherford, committed under the Sexually
Violent Persons Commitment Act (725 ILCS 207/1 et
seq. (West 2008)), appeals from the trial court's
denial of his petition for discharge and the appointment of
an independent evaluator. For the reasons that follow, we
2 I. BACKGROUND
3 In 2002, respondent, then 16 years old, was adjudicated a
delinquent minor for committing attempted aggravated criminal
sexual assault (720 ILCS 5/8-4(a), 12-14(b)(i) (West 2002))
and aggravated criminal sexual abuse (id. §
12-16(c)(2)(i)) against an 8-year-old girl. He was sentenced
to five years of probation. In March 2005, respondent
admitted to violating the conditions of his probation and was
committed to the Department of Juvenile Justice (DJJ) for an
indeterminate term under section 5-720 of the Juvenile Court
Act of 1987 (705 ILCS 405/5-720 (West 2004)). He was released
on parole in June 2006. In 2007, at the age of 20, respondent
violated his parole conditions by committing frottage against
a treatment center staff member on at least two occasions and
was recommitted to the DJJ.
4 In May 2007, the State sought respondent's civil
commitment under the Sexually Violent Persons Commitment Act.
In June 2008, after consulting with his attorney, respondent
stipulated to being a sexually violent person and to being
committed to the care, control, and treatment of the Illinois
Department of Human Services (DHS). After finding that
respondent had waived his right to a jury trial, the trial
court accepted his stipulation to commitment. In July 2009,
the court heard evidence at a dispositional hearing,
including testimony from respondent and two psychologists,
and ordered respondent committed to institutional care in a
5 In 2017, respondent received a statutorily required
periodic reexamination to determine whether he had "made
sufficient progress in treatment to be conditionally
released" and whether his condition had so changed since
his last periodic reexamination that he was "no longer a
sexually violent person." 725 ILCS 207/55(a) (West
2016). The investigation was conducted by Dr. Richard Travis.
Because respondent declined to participate in the
investigation, Dr. Travis based his evaluation on
respondent's criminal, DJJ, and DHS records.
6 In his evaluation report, Dr. Travis identified
respondent's 2007 frottage offenses against a female
counselor as his "predicate offense." The report
explains that a predicate offense leads to a mental disorder
diagnosis that becomes the basis for a subsequent legal
determination, such as involuntary civil commitment.
7 Based on respondent's records and on generally accepted
diagnostic criteria, Dr. Travis diagnosed respondent with
"Pedophilic Disorder, Sexually Attracted to Both,
Nonexclusive; Frotteuristic Disorder; Other Specified
Paraphilic Disorder, Zoophilia; Bipolar I Disorder, In Full
Remission; and Antisocial Personality Disorder." Noting
that respondent was 31 years old at the time of the
reexamination, Dr. Travis analyzed his likelihood of
recidivism using actuarial assessment tools that incorporate
the relationship between age at release and sexual
recidivism. Respondent scored in the highest of five risk
categories on these actuarial instruments. Because respondent
also presented many dynamic risk factors and treatment needs
based on psychological traits, he "remain[ed] at a
substantial probability to engage in acts of sexual
8 Dr. Travis noted that the risk of sexual recidivism can be
lowered by "successful completion of sexual offense
specific treatment." However, since respondent had not
participated in sex offender treatment since 2009, when he
withdrew consent for treatment, "[n]o treatment-based
risk reduction [was] warranted."
9 In conclusion, Dr. Travis stated: "Due to his mental
disorders and assessed risk, [respondent] remains
substantially probable to engage in acts of sexual violence.
His condition has not changed since the most recent periodic
reexamination [in 2016] such that he is no longer a sexually
violent person." He further concluded that respondent