HomeMy WebLinkAbout97-1084 CriminalCOMMONWEALTH :
:
V. :
:
WOODROW LEE WOODALL :
OTN: E800339-1
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
NO. 97-1084 CRIMINAL TERM
IN RE: DEFENDANT'S MOTION CHALLENGING THE CONSTITUTIONALITY O~'
THE "SEXUALLY VIOLENT PREDATOR" PROVISIONS OF
PENNSYLVANIA'S MEGAN'S LAW
BEFORE OLER, J.
ORDER OF COURT
AND NOW, this [~ day of May, 1998, upon consideration of
Defendant,s Motion Challenging the Constitutionality of the
"Sexually Violent Predator', Provisions of Pennsylvania,s Megan's
Law, and for the reasons stated in the accompanying opinion, the
motion is granted to the extent indicated in the opinion, the
hearing pursuant to Section 9794(e) of the Judicial Code scheduled
for May, 4, 1998, at 9:00 a.m., is cancelled, and Defendant is
directed to appear for sentence as previously scheduled on May 26,
1998, at 9:30 a.m.
BY THE COURT,
~esley Ole~, Jr.,
Travis N. Gery, Esq.
Assistant District Attorney
Gary Lysaght, Esq.
1350 Fishing Creek Valley Road
Harrisburg, PA 17112
Attorney for the Defendant
COMMONWEALTH :
:
V.
:
:
WOODROW LEE WOODALL :
OTN: E800339-1
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
NO. 97-1084 CRIMINAL TERM
IN RE: DEFENDANT'S MOTION CHALLENGING THE CONSTITUTIONALITY O~'
THE "SEXUALLY VIOLENT PREDATOR" PROVISIONS OF
PENNSYLVANIA'S MEGAN'S LAW
BEFORE OLER, J.
OPINION and ORDER OF COURT
Oler, J., May 1, 1998.
In this criminal case, Defendant was found guilty following a
non-jury trial of simple assault, harassment, indecent assault,
defiant trespass, .... theft by unlawful taking or disposition, and
aggravated indecent assault. Pursuant to Section 9794(e) of the
Judicial Code,~ Defendant was ordered to be assessed by the
Pennsylvania Sexual Offenders Board2 and a status determination
hearing was scheduled prior to sentencing to determine whether
Defendant should be designated a sexually violent predator pursuant
to Pennsylvania,s Megan's Law.3 Prior to the hearing, Defendant
filed the motion sub judice challenging in certain respects the
constitutionality of PennsylVania,s Megan's Law.
STATEMRNT OF FACTS
Defendant,s convictions arose out of an incident involving an
~ Act of October 24, 1995, P.L. 1079, § 1, as amended, 42 Pa.
C.S.A. § 9794(a) .
Order of Court, dated November 26, 1997.
3 Act of Oct. 24, 1995, P.L. 1079, § 1, as amended, 42 Pa.
C.S.A. ~§ 9791-99.6.
adult woman at her apartment, during which Defendant engaged in
sexual contact with the woman without her consent.
Following a non-jury trial, Defendant was found guilty, inter
alia, of aggravated indecent assault, an offense enumerated in
Section 9793(b) of the Judicial Code.4 Pursuant to Section 9794
of the Judicial Code, an "offender convicted of any offense set
forth in section 9793(b) shall be presumed ... to be a sexually
violent predator,,,5 and must be assessed by the Pennsylvania Sexual.
Offenders Board.6 The offender can rebut the presumption at the
status determination hearing which must be held prior to sentencing
in which the court determines if the offender is a sexually violent
predator.7 Once the court finds that an offender is a sexually
violent predator, the offender is subject to a sentence
enhancement, counseling, registration and notification
requirements.8 These provisions of the Judicial Code form part of
what is commonly referred to as Pennsylvania,s Megan's Law.9
Accordingly, Defendant was ordered to be assessed by the
4 Act of October 24, 1995, P.L. 1079, § 1, as amended, 42 Pa.
C.S.A. § 9793 (b) (2) .
5 Act of October 24, 1995, P.L. 1079, § 1, as amended, 42 Pa.
C.S.A. § 9794(b).
6 Act of October 24, 1995, P.L. 1079, § 1, as amended, 42 Pa.
C.S.A. § 9794(a).
? Act of October 24, 1995, P.L. 1079, § 1, as amended, 42 Pa.
C.S.A. § 9794(e).
8 Act of October 24, 1995, P.L. 1079, § 1, as amended, 42 Pa.
C.S.A. §§ 9795, 9797, 9798, and 9799.4.
9 Act of October 24, 1995, P.L. 1079, § 1, as amended, 42 Pa.
C.S.A. §§ 9791 to 9799.6.
Pennsylvania Sexual Offenders Board and a status determination
hearing was scheduled. Prior to the hearing, Defendant filed the
motion sub judice challenging the constitutionality of
Pennsylvania,s Megan's Law, contending that the sexually violent
predator provisions are unconstitutional under the Constitution of
the United States and the Constitution of the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania for the following reasons:
a) The law punishes and tries the defendant twice for the
same offense;
b) The law can not prognosticate dangerous and criminal
behavior in the defendant,s future;
c) The law diagnoses an affliction or infirmity ... upon
the defendant and a suspect class which is vague,
defamatory, and discriminatory ...;
d) The law can not be shown to prevent anticipated harms
to the citizens when balanced with the burdens put upon
an irrationally selected and designated class;
e) The law permits defendant,s assessment ... and a life
sentence by mere presumption, while requiring the
defendant to establish his innocence or exempt status by
clear and convincing evidence without a right to jury
trial;
f) The law permits an assessment in a non-adversarial
forum by the board without allowing confrontation, cross-
examination, representation by counsel, or testimony;
g) The law permits a legislatively created board to
dictate and bind the judiciary to hold findings and facts
as true without due process while disregarding rules of
evidence and the separation of powers.~°
In Commonwealth v. Dick, No. 97-0913 Criminal Term (Cumberland
County) (April 29, 1998), the Honorable Kevin A. Hess of this court
~0 Defendant,s Motion Challenging the Constitutionality of the
"Sexually Violent Predator,, Provisions of Pennsylvania,s Megan's
Law, paragraph 6.
analyzed the constitutionality of the sexually violent predator
provisions of Pennsylvania,s Megan's Law. Judge Hess held that the
presumption created by Section 9794 of the Judicial Code that any
"offender convicted of any offense set forth in section 9793(b)
shall be presumed ... to be a sexually violent predator,,,~ in
relation to the sentence enhancement and notification provisions of
Megan's Law violates due process and is therefore invalid under the
United States Constitution and the Constitution of Pennsylvania.
The holding and rationale of Judge Hess's opinion in Dick is
adopted in this case, and the opinion is attached hereto and made
a part hereof.
ORDER OF COURT
AND NOW, this ~ day of May, 1998, upon consideration of
Defendant,s Motion Challenging the Constitutionality of the
"Sexually Violent Predator', Provisions of Pennsylvania,s Megan's
Law, and for the reasons stated in the accompanying opinion, the
motion is granted to the extent indicated in the opinion, the
hearing pursuant to Section 9794(e) of the Judicial Code scheduled
for May, 4, 1998, at 9:00 a.m., is cancelled, and Defendant is
directed to appear for sentence as previously scheduled on May 26,
1998, at 9:30 a.m.
BY THE COURT,
/s/ J. Wesley Oler. Jr,
J. Wesley Oler, Jr., J.
¢¢ Act of October 24, 1995, P.L. 1079, § 1, as amended, 42 Pa.
C.S.A. § 9794 (b).
Travis N. Gery, Esq.
Assistant District Attorney
Gary Lysaght, Esq.
1350 Fishing Creek Valley Road
Harrisburg, PA 17112
Attorney for the Defendant