In re Commitment of Gavin

Respondent, found to be a sexually dangerous person by jury under Sexually Violent Persons Commitment Act (SVP Act), was denied a fair trial when State made sarcastic, highly improper and prejudicial statements about Respondent and his attorney in opening remarks and closing argument. State created substantial prejudice, encouraging jury to consider facts underlying crimes as substantive evidence and amplifying possibility that jury would use proceedings to punish Respondent for his past acts. Focus of SVP Act proceedings should be whether individual mental condition currently poses a risk of sexual recidivism. (NEVILLE and PUCINSKI, concurring.)