Commonwealth v. Hollingshead
111 A.3d 186
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2015Background
- Appellant Kyla Hollingshead, then a 22-year-old assistant girls’ soccer coach, had sexual relationships with two student players (ages 15 and 16).
- Charged with corruption of minors and institutional sexual assault, she pled guilty to one count of corruption of minors and institutional sexual assault and was sentenced (60 days to 23½ months imprisonment, then 30 months probation).
- The trial court ordered a SOAB assessment to determine whether Hollingshead should be designated a Sexually Violent Predator (SVP).
- At the SVP hearing the Commonwealth’s expert (Corrine Scheuneman, MA, LPC) diagnosed hebephilia (paraphilia NOS) and the defense presented Dr. Timothy Foley, who disputed the diagnosis and significance.
- The trial court credited Scheuneman, found clear and convincing evidence of a mental abnormality (hebephilia) and predatory conduct after weighing the 15 statutory factors, and designated Hollingshead an SVP.
- On appeal, Hollingshead argued insufficient evidence because hebephilia is not a recognized DSM diagnosis and the defense expert refuted the abnormality; the Superior Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Commonwealth's Argument | Hollingshead's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether evidence was sufficient to classify Hollingshead as an SVP | SOAB expert diagnosed hebephilia (paraphilia NOS), described grooming, reliance on victims’ innocence/vulnerability, multiple incidents, and statutory-factor analysis supporting likelihood of predatory reoffense | Hebephilia is not a DSM-listed disorder; expert testimony was unreliable and defense expert showed no mental abnormality | Affirmed: trial court properly credited Commonwealth expert; hebephilia (paraphilia NOS) may support an SVP finding where expert testimony and facts show a mental abnormality and predatory conduct. |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Baker, 24 A.3d 1006 (Pa. Super. 2011) (standard for reviewing SVP designation; clear and convincing evidence required)
- Commonwealth v. Stephens, 74 A.3d 1034 (Pa. Super. 2013) (defines mental abnormality and role of predatory conduct and risk-of-reoffense in SVP analysis)
- Commonwealth v. Lee, 935 A.2d 865 (Pa. 2007) (statute does not require a diagnosis to be in mainstream diagnostic paradigms)
- Commonwealth v. Plucinski, 868 A.2d 20 (Pa. Super. 2005) (fact-specific rejection of hebephilia as primary impetus where other factors explained conduct)
- New York v. Shannon S., 980 N.E.2d 510 (N.Y. 2012) (hebephilia diagnosis may support a finding of mental abnormality)
- United States v. Carta, 592 F.3d 34 (1st Cir. 2010) (paraphilia NOS/hebephilia can satisfy federal definition of mental abnormality)
- United States v. Caporale, 701 F.3d 128 (4th Cir. 2012) (recognizing hebephilia, as understood, can qualify as a serious mental illness/abnormality)