Com. v. Karolski, C.
Com. v. Karolski, C. No. 1250 WDA 2016
Pa. Super. Ct.Jun 28, 2017Background
- Clifford Joseph Karolski pleaded nolo contendere to one count of aggravated indecent assault of a child under 13.
- A court-ordered SVP assessment by a SOAB expert was conducted without a personal interview of Karolski.
- The SOAB expert considered prior allegations, police reports, charging documents, victim statements, defendant statements, and case dispositions in forming an opinion.
- Trial court found Karolski met the Sexual Violent Predator (SVP) criteria and imposed 50–120 months’ imprisonment.
- Karolski appealed, arguing the Commonwealth’s evidence was insufficient to support the SVP designation, attacking the expert’s reliance on unproven allegations and her failure to interview him.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for SVP designation | Commonwealth: expert opinion and documentary materials suffice; review views evidence in Commonwealth's favor | Karolski: Commonwealth failed to prove SVP criteria; missing factors and reliance on hearsay/unproven allegations | Affirmed — evidence (including expert opinion) met clear-and-convincing standard when viewed in Commonwealth’s favor |
| Expert’s failure to interview defendant | Commonwealth: no statutory requirement to interview; expert may rely on records | Karolski: lack of personal interview undermines expert’s analysis | Rejected — no authority requires interview; absence does not invalidate SVP assessment |
| Expert’s use of unproven allegations and records | Commonwealth: SOAB may consider arrest warrants, affidavits, police reports, victim statements | Karolski: expert improperly relied on dismissed/uncharged allegations (hearsay) | Rejected as a sufficiency challenge — consideration of such records is permitted; challenges go to weight, not admissibility/sufficiency |
| Weight vs. admissibility of expert evidence | Commonwealth: expert opinion, rendered to reasonable professional certainty, is evidence | Karolski: sought reweighing/discounting of expert testimony | Court: weight-of-evidence arguments are for factfinder; appellate review does not reweigh; no relief granted |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Plucinski, 868 A.2d 20 (Pa. Super. 2005) (standard for reviewing SVP sufficiency and expert opinion as evidence)
- Commonwealth v. Fuentes, 991 A.2d 935 (Pa. Super. 2010) (expert opinion to reasonable degree of professional certainty is evidence)
- Commonwealth v. Meals, 912 A.2d 213 (Pa. 2006) (appellate review limited to reviewing evidence; do not reweigh; weight vs. sufficiency distinction)
- Commonwealth v. Prendes, 97 A.3d 337 (Pa. Super. 2014) (SOAB evaluators may consider charging documents and related records in assessments)