People v. Grant

This case presents question as to whether, in respondent’s application for discharge or conditional release from commitment under Sexually Dangerous Persons Act (Act), trial court violated respondent’s constitutional rights by granting state’s motion to appoint independent psychiatrist to examine respondent, but denying respondent’s similar request, where jury eventually found respondent subject to commitment as sexually dangerous person. Appellate Court, in reversing trial court, found that trial court violated respondent’s due process rights since: (1) said Act does not contemplate appointment of independent expert chosen by State’s Attorney; (2) trial court failed to require govt. to demonstrate unusual circumstances to support its request for appointment of expert; (3) govt. failed to show existing DOC report on respondent was biased; (4) govt. could not support request for appointment of expert simply because it disagreed with DOC report; and (5) once govt. was granted appointment for expert, respondent’s similar request should have been granted.