Com. v. Yant, V.
Com. v. Yant v. No. 1393 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | May 17, 2017Background
- Vincent Yant pleaded guilty (October 13, 2015) to false imprisonment, stalking, indecent assault, indecent exposure, and harassment based on two incidents in 2014: an attempted abduction/assault of a 17‑year‑old after she exited public transit, and an indecent‑exposure/masturbation incident after another victim exited transit.
- Guilty plea triggered a Sexual Offender Assessment Board (SOAB) evaluation under Pennsylvania’s SVP statute; the parties stipulated to admission of the SOAB report (Dr. Barry Zakireh) at the SVP hearing.
- Dr. Zakireh concluded, to a reasonable degree of professional/psychological certainty, that Yant met criteria for antisocial personality disorder and that his pattern of behavior made him likely to engage in predatory sexually violent offenses.
- The trial court held an SVP hearing (April 15, 2016), found the Commonwealth met its burden by clear and convincing evidence, classified Yant as an SVP, and sentenced him to 3½–7 years’ incarceration followed by 10 years’ probation.
- Yant appealed solely challenging the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the SVP determination; the Superior Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Commonwealth) | Defendant's Argument (Yant) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether evidence was sufficient to classify Yant as an SVP | SOAB report (Dr. Zakireh) established by clear and convincing evidence that Yant has a mental abnormality/personality disorder and engages in predatory sexual conduct | The evidence was insufficient to show Yant has the required mental abnormality/personality disorder or predatory propensity | Affirmed: SOAB report addressed statutory factors and provided clear and convincing evidence supporting SVP classification |
| Whether prosecutor’s misstatement (that defendant exceeded means necessary) tainted the SVP finding | N/A — prosecutor argued an aggravating fact at hearing | Misstatement rendered the SVP finding unreliable because report did not find excess means | Rejected: Court relied on SOAB report itself, not counsel’s argument; report did not support the claimed error |
Key Cases Cited
- Hollingshead v. Commonwealth, 111 A.3d 186 (Pa. Super. 2015) (standard for reviewing SVP designation and sufficiency review)
- Baker v. Commonwealth, 24 A.3d 1006 (Pa. Super. 2011) (SVP sufficiency principles)
- Stephens v. Commonwealth, 84 A.3d 1034 (Pa. Super. 2013) (SOAB assessment process and factors)
- Prendes v. Commonwealth, 97 A.3d 337 (Pa. Super. 2014) (reviewing SVP sufficiency and acceptance of record in Commonwealth’s favor)
- Meals v. Commonwealth, 912 A.2d 213 (Pa. 2006) (treatment of evidence on SVP review)
- Fletcher v. Commonwealth, 947 A.2d 776 (Pa. Super. 2008) (definition and process for SVP determination)
- Askew v. Commonwealth, 907 A.2d 624 (Pa. Super. 2006) (conviction triggers SOAB assessment for SVP)
- Fuentes v. Commonwealth, 991 A.2d 935 (Pa. Super. 2010) (expert opinion as evidence for SVP findings)
- Bey v. Commonwealth, 841 A.2d 562 (Pa. Super. 2004) (statutory factors for assessing likelihood of reoffense)
- Dixon v. Commonwealth, 907 A.2d 533 (Pa. Super. 2006) (procedural triggering and assessment requirements for SVP)
- Dengler v. Commonwealth, 890 A.2d 372 (Pa. 2005) (abuse of discretion standard discussion)
- Brooks v. Commonwealth, 7 A.3d 852 (Pa. Super. 2010) (scope of review)