Com. v. Schweikert, M.
Com. v. Schweikert, M. No. 947 MDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Feb 14, 2017Background
- Martin Schweikert pleaded guilty (Oct. 13, 2015) to one count of involuntary deviate sexual intercourse (IDSI) and one count of indecent assault for repeated sexual abuse of two prepubescent victims (his stepson and biological son) occurring from the mid-1990s through 2005.
- Sentenced to 4½ to 10 years’ incarceration plus five years’ probation; the trial court ordered a SOAB assessment and later held an SVP hearing (May 23, 2016).
- SOAB member Dr. Veronique N. Valliere (Commonwealth expert) concluded Schweikert met DSM-5 criteria for pedophilic disorder, that it impaired his volitional/emotional control, and that his conduct was predatory, supporting SVP classification.
- Defense expert Dr. Timothy P. Foley agreed on the pedophilic diagnosis and predatory access but concluded Schweikert did not have volitional deficits and posed a low actuarial risk (Static-99R).
- The trial court credited Dr. Valliere’s opinion and Schweikert’s own testimony (which included admissions of inability to stop and minimization of conduct) and found, by clear and convincing evidence, that Schweikert is an SVP.
- Schweikert appealed, arguing insufficient evidence that his pedophilic disorder impaired volition/emotion and that his age and decade without reported offending made future predation unlikely; the Superior Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether evidence showed a "mental abnormality or personality disorder" that impairs volitional/emotional capacity as required for SVP status | Commonwealth: Dr. Valliere diagnosed pedophilic disorder, testified it is lifelong, impaired volitional/emotional control (repeated offenses despite knowledge of wrong) | Schweikert: Agreed to diagnosis but argued no proof it affected his volition/emotion; he remained law‑abiding for a decade and minimized past conduct | Court credited Dr. Valliere and Schweikert’s admissions; found clear and convincing evidence of volitional/emotional impairment and affirmed SVP classification |
| Whether the Commonwealth proved likelihood of future predatory sexually violent offenses | Commonwealth: Predatory access (father/stepfather), repeated offenses over years, lifelong disorder supports future risk; risk is one factor among many | Schweikert: Defense expert’s Static‑99R places him in a low recidivism category; age and time without offenses reduce risk | Court held recidivism risk need not rest solely on actuarial tools, gave greater weight to Commonwealth expert and factual record; SVP finding upheld |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Morgan, 16 A.3d 1165 (Pa. Super. 2011) (defines clear-and-convincing standard and SVP assessment scope)
- Commonwealth v. Fuentes, 991 A.2d 935 (Pa. Super. 2010) (discusses evidentiary requirements for SVP designation)
- Commonwealth v. Stephens, 74 A.3d 1034 (Pa. Super. 2013) (outlines elements and factors for SVP determinations)
- Commonwealth v. Hollingshead, 111 A.3d 186 (Pa. Super. 2015) (addresses reliance on expert testimony versus actuarial tools)
- Commonwealth v. Schrader, 141 A.3d 558 (Pa. Super. 2016) (timing of appeal where SVP determination occurs post-sentencing)