Com. v. King, S., 1749 EDA 2015

In July 2013 Stephen King masturbated a friend’s son while fondling himself; the victim and another child reported the incident. King was charged with corruption of minors and indecent assault.
King pleaded nolo contendere to indecent assault in April 2014; after learning of possible SVP classification he withdrew that plea and later re-pleaded nolo contendere in October 2014 and was sentenced to time served to 24 months.
The court ordered a SOAB assessment; Dr. Veronique Valliere (Commonwealth) diagnosed an other-specified personality disorder with antisocial and narcissistic traits and opined King was likely to engage in future predatory sexual behavior.
Dr. Robert M. Gordon (defense) testified King has poor impulse control from paranoid schizophrenia but does not have a personality disorder; he disagreed that King met SVP criteria.
The trial court found, by clear and convincing evidence, that King met statutory SVP criteria; post-trial reconsideration was denied and King timely appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether SVP classification was supported by sufficient evidence	Commonwealth: SOAB assessment and Dr. Valliere’s testimony show King has a personality disorder/mental abnormality (antisocial, narcissistic traits) making him likely to reoffend	King: Defense expert disputes personality disorder diagnosis; attributes impulse control to schizophrenia and argues evidence insufficient for SVP	Court: Affirmed — clear and convincing evidence supported SVP classification (trial court credited Commonwealth expert and statutory factors)

Commonwealth v. Hollingshead, 111 A.3d 186 (Pa. Super. 2015) (standard for reviewing SVP designation and sufficiency of evidence)
Commonwealth v. Killinger, 888 A.2d 592 (Pa. 2005) (SVP status decided by clear and convincing evidence, not beyond a reasonable doubt)
Commonwealth v. Conklin, 897 A.2d 1168 (Pa. 2006) (Commonwealth need not produce a specific clinical diagnosis by a licensed psychiatrist or psychologist to prove SVP)
Commonwealth v. Brooks, 7 A.3d 852 (Pa. Super. 2010) (statutory assessment factors are not a checklist; not all must be present)
Commonwealth v. Askew, 907 A.2d 624 (Pa. Super. 2006) (elements required for SVP designation: conviction for sexually violent offense and mental abnormality/personality disorder making future predatory sexual offenses likely)
Commonwealth v. Kopicz, 840 A.2d 342 (Pa. Super. 2003) (SOAB role is assessment, not adjudication)
Commonwealth v. Howe, 842 A.2d 436 (Pa. Super. 2004) (SVP assessment is not a criminal proceeding imposing additional punishment)