People v. Olsson, No. 2-15-0178, APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS, SECOND DISTRICT, 2016 IL App (2d) 150178-U; 2016 Ill. App. Unpub. LEXIS 354, February 29, 2016, Order Filed, THIS ORDER WAS FILED UNDER SUPREME COURT RULE 23 AND MAY NOT BE CITED AS PRECEDENT BY ANY PARTY EXCEPT IN THE LIMITED CIRCUMSTANCES ALLOWED UNDER RULE 23(e)(1).
The defendant Mr. Olsson was charged with several sex offenses involving children but was also found unfit to be tried. After his charge came back “not guilty”, Mr. Olsson was ordered treatment for an extended period at the Elgin Mental Health Center. Treatment plans were to be reported every 90 days and a hearing every 180 days must be done. However, the defendant had not attended a hearing in 2015 and according to the defendant’s treating psychiatrist Dr. Malis, the defendant refused to attend. Dr. Malis was the only witness to testify on Mr. Olsson’s case. According to Dr. Malis, the defendant was diagnosed with pedophilic disorder and still posed a danger to society. The defendant refused treatment for his disorder even though Dr. Malis had offered. Treatment for pedophilic disorder involved having the defendant assessed by the Sex Offender Management Board first in order to base treatment on those results. Mr. Olsson refused any assessment because of the possibility of this being used against him in court.
Dr. Malis had stated that he was not an expert in evaluating sex offenders which was why he offered to bring in another evaluator from the Sex Offender Management Board. No evaluation has been performed as of yet on Mr. Olsson. The court has ruled that because the defendant poses a threat to the public, evaluation must be done. Dr. Malis was ordered to bring in the sex offender evaluator against the defendant’s wishes. If the defendant does not cooperate though, then the court will be notified and another decision will be made. The defendant then filed a notice of appeal because he claims that his due process rights had been violated when the court first accepted the treatment plan from the Elgin Mental Health Center and questions Dr. Malis’ qualifications to treat him as well as why a sex offender evaluator was not appointed instead. Because these arguments of the defendant challenge the court and Dr. Malis’ judgment that were both in favor of Mr. Olsson, there is no merit held and therefor affirm this cases judgment.
Forensic Summary by Kiana DelGrosso