Com. v. Calcagni, C., Com. v. Calcagni, C. No. 1797 EDA 2016

In 1991 Calcagni pled guilty to five counts of corruption of minors for sexual acts with girls aged 13–16 while employed at a juvenile facility; record otherwise limited.
In 2015 he pled guilty to statutory sexual assault and corruption of minors relating to intercourse with a 15‑year‑old karate student; sentencing was deferred pending an SVP assessment.
A Sexual Offender Assessment Board psychologist, Dr. Veronique Valliere, assessed Calcagni and testified at an SVP hearing that he suffers from “other specified paraphilic disorder to adolescents” and is likely to reoffend.
Calcagni waived participation in the assessment and declined to testify; he requested continuances to investigate his 1991 record but ultimately presented no rebuttal expert or evidence.
The trial court classified Calcagni as a sexually violent predator (SVP) under SORNA on May 12, 2016; Calcagni appealed arguing expert testimony was inadmissible and the evidence was insufficient.
The Superior Court affirmed, applying a de novo review of SVP sufficiency but deferring to the trial court’s factual findings and adoption of the trial court’s opinion.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Commonwealth)	Defendant's Argument (Calcagni)	Held
Whether expert evidence supporting SVP classification was admissible and sufficient	Expert (Dr. Valliere) relied on available records and provided a reliable opinion tying past and present offenses to a paraphilic disorder; admissible and probative	Expert testimony was unreliable/ inadmissible because assessor did not interview Calcagni or review 24 years of history; convictions from 1991 were uncorroborated	Held: Expert testimony admissible and sufficient; absence of interview did not preclude assessment; defendant waived objections and failed to rebut testimony
Whether Commonwealth proved by clear and convincing evidence that Calcagni has a mental abnormality making him likely to reoffend	Evidence of patterned sexual arousal to adolescents and authority‑positioning supports SVP finding by clear and convincing evidence	Argued insufficient proof of current dangerousness; prior allegations were unreliable and plea reduced charges	Held: Clear and convincing evidence supports SVP classification; trial court’s factual findings affirmed

Commonwealth v. Meals, 912 A.2d 213 (Pa. 2006) (standard of review for SVP determinations)
Commonwealth v. Prendes, 97 A.3d 337 (Pa. Super. 2014) (absence of interview does not bar expert evaluation; opposing counsel must expose weaknesses in expert testimony)
Commonwealth v. Baker, 24 A.3d 1006 (Pa. Super. 2011), aff’d, 78 A.3d 1044 (Pa. 2013) (Commonwealth must prove SVP elements by clear and convincing evidence)
Commonwealth v. Brooks, 7 A.3d 852 (Pa. Super. 2010) (definition of mental abnormality/personality disorder for SVP purposes)
Commonwealth v. Woods, 909 A.2d 372 (Pa. Super. 2006) (expert may rely on available history when interview is absent)
In re D.Y., 34 A.3d 177 (Pa. Super. 2011) (burden on opposing counsel to explore assumptions underlying expert opinion)