Com. v. Barnes, D.
1156 WDA 2015
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Oct 6, 2016Background
- Donnell Barnes (Appellant), then aged about 50–53 and the live‑in boyfriend of the victim’s mother, engaged in repeated sexual contact with a prepubescent child (victim aged 8–10).
- Appellant pleaded no contest to corruption of minors, indecent assault, and endangering the welfare of a child; sentencing and an SVP (sexually violent predator) hearing occurred June 26, 2015.
- The Commonwealth’s SVP evidence consisted primarily of expert testimony from Brenda Manno of the Sexual Offender Assessment Board (SOAB), who reviewed records but did not examine or interview Appellant (he declined to be interviewed).
- Manno diagnosed pedophilic disorder, found the conduct predatory, and opined Appellant was likely to reoffend; the trial court accepted her opinion and designated Appellant an SVP and required lifetime registration.
- Appellant appealed only the SVP designation, arguing the Commonwealth failed to meet the clear‑and‑convincing standard because the expert relied on hearsay/records and the facts did not support an SVP classification.
- The Superior Court reviewed sufficiency de novo (viewing evidence in Commonwealth’s favor) and affirmed the SVP designation and judgment of sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether evidence was sufficient for SVP designation | Commonwealth: SOAB expert testimony and record review satisfy clear‑and‑convincing proof of a mental abnormality (pedophilic disorder), predatory conduct, and risk to reoffend. | Barnes: Expert testimony was hearsay because Manno did not interview him; factors under SORNA not met (no prior sexual convictions, no extraordinary violence). | Affirmed: Expert may rely on records under Pa.R.E. 703; Manno addressed statutory factors and opined pedophilic disorder and predation — clear‑and‑convincing evidence supported SVP. |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Brooks, 7 A.3d 852 (Pa. Super. 2010) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of SVP evidence and trial‑court factfinding deference)
- Commonwealth v. Haughwout, 837 A.2d 480 (Pa. Super. 2003) (sufficiency review principles)
- Commonwealth v. Hollingshead, 111 A.3d 186 (Pa. Super. 2015) (elements and framework for SVP designation)
- Commonwealth v. Baker, 24 A.3d 1006 (Pa. Super. 2011) (SVP assessment requirements)
- Commonwealth v. Stephens, 74 A.3d 1034 (Pa. Super. 2013) (discussion of mental abnormality, predation, and reoffense risk)
- Commonwealth v. Feucht, 955 A.2d 377 (Pa. Super. 2008) (trial court’s role in SVP determination after SOAB assessment)
- Commonwealth v. Prendes, 97 A.3d 337 (Pa. Super. 2014) (permissible bases for SOAB expert opinions and reliance on records)
- Commonwealth v. Lipphardt, 841 A.2d 551 (Pa. Super. 2004) (SVP denied where a single offense against an adult and antisocial personality disorder present)
- Commonwealth v. Plucinski, 868 A.2d 20 (Pa. Super. 2005) (SVP considerations where facts did not support designation despite repeated abuse)
- Commonwealth v. Meals, 912 A.2d 213 (Pa. 2006) (appellate courts must not reweigh SVP evidence)