## Facts

- Shannon S. had four sex-related convictions resolved by guilty pleas, including offenses involving adolescent and young teen girls and one involving rape and sodomy of a 13-year-old.
- As he neared release from prison, the State evaluated him for civil management under New York’s Sex Offender Management and Treatment Act (SOMTA), Mental Hygiene Law (MHL) article 10.
- A State-retained psychologist diagnosed Shannon with paraphilia not otherwise specified (NOS) and opined that he met SOMTA’s definition of “mental abnormality.”
- The State filed an article 10 petition seeking civil management, including confinement in a secure treatment facility.
- After a probable-cause hearing, the court held a bench trial on whether Shannon had a “mental abnormality” under MHL article 10.
- The State’s expert testified that Shannon met criteria for paraphilia NOS with hebephilic features (sexual interest in early adolescents) and acknowledged that “hebephilia” is not listed in the DSM.
- The defense expert disputed the diagnosis and contested whether Shannon met the statutory standard.
- The trial court found Shannon had a mental abnormality, classified him as a dangerous sex offender requiring confinement, and ordered indefinite confinement in a secure treatment facility.
- The Appellate Division affirmed, and Shannon appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.

## Issues

1. Whether SOMTA requires that the expert diagnosis supporting a “mental abnormality” be a disorder recognized in the DSM.
2. Whether the evidence, including expert testimony diagnosing paraphilia NOS/hebephilia and Shannon’s offense history, was legally sufficient to support findings of mental abnormality and dangerousness requiring confinement.

## Decision

- The New York Court of Appeals affirmed.
- The court held that SOMTA does not require a DSM-listed diagnosis to prove a “mental abnormality.”
- The court concluded the State’s expert testimony, together with Shannon’s repeated sexual offenses against minors, provided legally sufficient evidence that he had a mental abnormality as defined by MHL article 10.
- The court upheld the determination that Shannon was a dangerous sex offender requiring confinement and left the confinement order in place.

## Legal Principles

- Under MHL article 10, “mental abnormality” is a legal definition: a congenital or acquired condition affecting emotional, cognitive, or volitional capacity that predisposes a person to commit sex offenses and results in serious difficulty controlling such conduct.
- A diagnosis need not correspond to a DSM category to support a finding of mental abnormality; DSM status may affect weight but is not a categorical prerequisite to admissibility or sufficiency.
- The factfinder may credit one qualified expert over another when determining whether the statutory criteria are met, and appellate review does not reweigh credibility determinations where the record supports them.
- Evidence of a repeated pattern of sexual offenses against minors, coupled with expert testimony linking that pattern to an enduring condition impairing control, can satisfy SOMTA’s predisposition and “serious difficulty controlling” requirements.

## Conclusion

The court held that SOMTA permits a mental abnormality finding based on credible expert testimony explaining how an offender’s condition predisposes sexual offending and impairs behavioral control, even when the diagnostic label (such as hebephilia) is not listed in the DSM, and it affirmed indefinite confinement upon sufficient proof of dangerousness.


In re State v. Shannon S., 980 N.E.2d 510 (N.Y. 2012)