Com. v. Caruano, B.
303 MDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Oct 13, 2016Background
- Between 2006–2009, Brendon Caruano sexually abused his minor cousin on multiple occasions (digital and oral contact); he later admitted these acts during a guilty plea.
- On May 29, 2015, Commonwealth charged Caruano with multiple offenses; on July 28, 2015 he entered open guilty pleas to aggravated indecent assault and corruption of minors; other counts were dismissed.
- The court ordered a SOAB assessment to determine sexually violent predator (SVP) status; Dr. Veronique Valliere (SOAB) prepared a report diagnosing paraphilic disorder and concluding Caruano met SVP criteria.
- Caruano’s expert, Dr. Timothy Foley, agreed on diagnosis but testified the risk of reoffense was low and that Caruano did not meet SVP criteria.
- The trial court found by clear and convincing evidence that Caruano’s paraphilic disorder and predatory use of his access (including exploiting his role as a police officer) made him likely to reoffend, classified him as an SVP, and imposed sentence (22–72 months imprisonment plus 60 months probation).
- On appeal, Caruano argued Commonwealth failed to prove SVP criteria by clear and convincing evidence and that the finding was against the weight of the evidence; the Superior Court affirmed, adopting the trial court’s opinion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Commonwealth) | Defendant's Argument (Caruano) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Commonwealth proved SVP status by clear and convincing evidence | SOAB report and testimony show paraphilic disorder, predatory conduct, and factors under §9799.24 supporting SVP designation | Evidence (expert testimony, Static-99) shows low risk of reoffense; diagnosis modifications reduce likelihood of future predation | Affirmed: trial court’s SVP finding upheld; Commonwealth met burden by clear and convincing evidence |
| Whether finding was against the weight of the evidence | N/A (Commonwealth relied on SOAB and trial court factfinding) | Argues weight of evidence favors non-classification due to low actuarial risk indicators | Rejected: appellate review is not reweighing; trial court credited SOAB and found predatory behavior sufficient |
| Whether "predatory" conduct element satisfied | Victim relationship, exploitation of access, and use of public persona (police officer) to facilitate abuse satisfy statutory definition of predatory | Contends actuarial/statistical measures and expert nuance show low likelihood of predation | Held: conduct met statutory definition of predatory; court found exploitation and initiation of abuse over time decisive |
| Preservation: Whether issues were preserved in concise statement | Commonwealth asserts concise statement was sufficient for review | Trial court found defendant's Rule 1925(b) statement vague and thus waived issues; alternatively, merits were addressed and rejected | Court treated issues as waived for vagueness but ruled on the merits in the alternative and denied relief |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Krouse, 799 A.2d 835 (Pa. Super. 2002) (standard for appellate review of SVP designation requires clear and convincing evidence)
- Commonwealth v. Meals, 912 A.2d 213 (Pa. 2006) (appellate role is review, not factfinding, on SVP classifications)
- Commonwealth v. Geiter, 929 A.2d 648 (Pa. Super. 2007) (discussing standard of review and sufficiency for SVP findings)
- Commonwealth v. Dowling, 778 A.2d 683 (Pa. Super. 2001) (issues not raised in a concise statement are waived)
- Commonwealth v. Lord, 719 A.2d 306 (Pa. 1998) (same; requirement and purpose of concise statement)
- Commonwealth v. Butler, 756 A.2d 55 (Pa. Super. 2000) (vague concise statements result in waiver)