Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCP-21-CR-0937-2006 COMMONWEALTH : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V.: : JEFFREY L. HAULMAN : NO. CP-21-CRIMINAL 0937 – 2006 IN RE: OPINION PURSUANT TO Pa. R.C.P. 1925 Guido, J., June , 2007 After a trial by jury the defendant was convicted of various charges stemming from the systematic sexual abuse of his elementary school age step daughter over a two year period. Among the charges for which he was convicted is aggravated indecent 1 assault which is classified as a sexually violent offense under Section 9795.1 of Megan’s 2 Law (hereinafter “the Act”). Therefore we directed an assessment by the State Sexual 3 Offenders Assessment Board as required by Section 9795.4 of the Act. After receipt of the report from the Board, the District Attorney asked us to 4 declare the defendant to be a “sexually violent predator” under the statute. We held a hearing on the matter on March 21, 2007. At the conclusion of the hearing we denied the Commonwealth’s request. It filed this timely appeal in which it alleges that we erred. Specifically, it contends that it satisfied its burden of proving that 1) the defendant suffers from a mental abnormality; 2) the mental abnormality makes it more likely that he will 5 re-offend; and 3) that he exhibited predatory behavior. 1 18 Pa. C.S.A. § 3125 (a) (7). 2 42 Pa. C.S.A. § 9795 (b) (2). 3 42 Pa. C.S.A. § 9795.4. 4 42 Pa. C.S.A. § 9792. 5 See Concise Statement of Matters Complained of on Appeal. CP-21-CRIMINAL 0937 - 2006 The Commonwealth has the burden of proving defendant’s status as a sexually violent predator by clear and convincing evidence. “Clear and convincing evidence is evidence that is ‘so clear, direct, weighty, and convincing as to enable [the fact-finder] to come to a clear conviction, without hesitancy, of the truth of the precise facts of the issue’.” Lessner v. Rubinson, 527 Pa. 393, 592 A.2d 678, (1991). Megan’s Law defines “sexually violent predator” as follows: A person who has been convicted of a sexually violent offense as set forth in section 9795.1 (relating to registration) and who is determined to be a sexually violent predator under section 9795.4 (relating to assessments) due to a mental abnormality or personality disorder that makes the person likely to engage in predatory sexually violent offenses. 42 Pa. C.S.A. § 9792. Therefore, in order for us to have found the defendant to be a sexually violent predator, the Commonwealth must have proven the following three elements by clear and convincing evidence: 1) defendant suffers from a mental abnormality 2) the mental abnormality makes him likely to engage in sexually violent offenses, and 3) those sexually violent offenses must be predatory in nature. We were satisfied that the Commonwealth had proven the first two elements. However, we were not convinced that it met its burden in connection with the third. The Commonwealth’s only witness was Jane Yeatter, a mental health therapist and veteran member of the Sexual Offender Assessment Board for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Citing the defendant’s repeated abuse of a prepubescent child over a two year period, Ms. Yeatter testified that the defendant suffers from the mental abnormality known as pedophilia. She also explained at length why that mental abnormality makes him likely to engage in sexually violent offenses. We found her testimony in that regard to be both credible and convincing. 2 CP-21-CRIMINAL 0937 - 2006 We were not, however, convinced by Ms. Yeatter’s testimony that defendant’s actions were “predatory” in nature. The legislature has chosen to define that term as follows: “Predatory.” An act directed at a stranger or at a person with whom a relationship has been initiated, established, maintained or promoted, in whole or in part, in order to facilitate or support victimization. 42 Pa. C.S.A. § 9792. After reciting the statutory definition, Ms. Yeatter testified as to her findings as follows: And I did determine that Mr. Haulman did maintain or promote the relationship with his victim at least in part to provide the victimization which occurred over a two-year period and that that relationship was used as part of his - - that he had -- - the relationship as a parental figure in 6 order to be able to do that. We did not understand the basis for her conclusion. The defendant’s relationship with the victim was as a step parent. Therefore, it was totally dependent upon and ancillary to his relationship with the victim’s mother. We asked Ms. Yeatter to clarify her testimony: THE COURT: Are you saying that he maintained his relationship with the mother of the victim in order to be able to molest the victim. THE WITNESS: That would be part of it also, exactly. He was in a parental - - THE COURT: Was that part of it, or is that it? The only relationship he had with the victim was as a result of a relationship with the mother? THE WITNESS: Exactly. Yes. THE COURT: Okay. And so I would have to find that he maintained the relationship with the mother at least in part to be able to victimize the child in order to find him a sexually violent predator? 7 THE WITNESS: Yes. Yes. 6 Transcript of Proceedings, March 21, 2007, pp. 18 – 19. 7 Transcript of Proceedings, March 21, 2007, p. 19. 3 CP-21-CRIMINAL 0937 - 2006 by clear and convincing evidence We simply could not conclude that defendant “initiated, established, maintained or promoted” his relationship with the child or her mother, even in part, for the purpose of victimizing the child. It appears that these were crimes of opportunity committed by a pedophile who found himself in a relationship where he could act upon his deviate desires. As we stated at the conclusion of the hearing: (W)hile I might find that he probably maintained or he may have maintained or promoted that relationship to support the victimization I can’t in good conscience find by and clear and convincing evidence that 8 was the purpose behind his maintaining or supporting the relationship; Therefore, we could not find him to be a “sexually violent predator” under the Act. ___________________ ________________________ DATE Edward E. Guido, J. Michelle H. Sibert, Esquire For the Commonwealth David S. Shrager, Esquire 429 Forbes Avenue, Suite 1310 Pittsburgh, Pa. 15219 :sld 8 Transcript of Proceedings, March 21, 2007, p. 67 4