HomeMy WebLinkAboutCP-21-CR-0002372-2011
COMMONWEALTH : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
: CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
:
: CP-21-CR-2372-2011
vs. :
: CHARGES: (1) INVOLUNTARY DEVIATE
: SEXUAL INTERCOURSE
: (2) AGGRAVATED INDECENT
: ASSAULT
:
JIMMY DEAN STOEY, JR. :
OTN: L649855-3 : AFFIANT: TRP. BENJAMIN H. WILSON
IN RE: OPINION PURSUANT TO Pa. R.A.P 1925
Ebert, J., April 1, 2013 -
The Defendant has filed this timely appeal from our Order of Court dated January 18,
1
2013, classifying Defendant as a Sexually Violent Predator. This opinion is filed pursuant to
Pa. R.A.P. 1925(a) and incorporates the previous 10 page opinion of this Court dated January 18,
2013, which deals at length with the factual and legal issues presented in this case.
Discussion
Defendant submitted a concise statement on the errors complained of on appeal on
2
February 19, 2013. In his statement, Defendant raises one issue for this court to consider: that
the evidence presented at the hearing was insufficient to sustain a finding that Defendant is a
3
sexually violent predator. This Court disagrees.
The Superior Court has a well-established standard in reviewing a SVP designation:
In order to affirm an SVP designation, we, as a reviewing court, must be able to
conclude that the fact-finder found clear and convincing evidence that the
individual is a sexually violent predator. As with any sufficiency of the evidence
claim, we view all evidence and reasonable inferences therefrom in the light most
favorable to the Commonwealth. We will reverse a trial court’s determination of
1
In re: Sexually Violent Predator Determination, Order, J. Ebert, Jan. 18, 2013 (hereinafter “Order at __”).
2
Concise Statement of the Errors Complained of on Appeal, filed Feb. 19, 2013.
3
Id.
SVP status only if the Commonwealth has not presented clear and convincing
evidence that each element of the statute has been satisfied.
Commonwealth v. Baker, 24 A.3d 1006, 1033 (Pa. Super. 2011) (quoting Commonwealth v.
Fuentes, 991 A.2d 935, 942 (Pa. Super. 2010).
In this case, we found the testimony of the Sexual Offenders Assessment Board’s expert,
4
Dr. Robert M. Stein, to be more credible than Defendant’s expert, Dr. Stanley E. Schneider.
When evaluating the testimony of witnesses, the fact finder is free to accept or reject the
credibility of expert and lay witnesses alike, and may believe all, part or none of the evidence.
Nemirovsky v. Nemirovsky, 776 A.2d 988, 993 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2000). “The credibility of
witnesses, professional or lay, and the weight to be given their testimony is strictly within the
proper province of the trier of fact.” Summers v. Certainteed Corp., 997 A.2d 1152, 1161 (Pa.
2010) (quoting In re Estate of Hunter, 205 A.2d 97, 102 (Pa. 1964). While the Court recognized
Dr. Schneider as a well-qualified expert, it simply found his analysis of Defendant’s behavior
5
unpersuasive, particularly in light of the overwhelming evidence presented to the Court.
6
Defendant inappropriately touched his step-daughter, NS, beginning when she was 15.
This contact continued and expanded over the course of six months and took place numerous
7
times. Defendant used his position as step-father as leverage to force NS to comply with his
8
requests, such as by confiscating her cell phone until NS engaged in sexual contact or refusing
9
to help NS open a bank account without sexual contact. Furthermore, Defendant sent several
10
text messages of a sexual nature to NS, and would “pester” NS until he got what he wanted.
Finally, NS stated to the police that she was afraid of Defendant because of his violent behavior
4
Order at 8.
5
Id. at 8.
6
Id. at 2.
7
Id. at 2-3.
8
Id. at 4.
9
Id. at 3.
10
Id. at 3-4.
2
11
towards her sisters and the way in which Defendant controlled every aspect of her life.
Defendant’s conduct likely would have continued but for the intervention of a friend’s mother
12
who brought NS to the police station.
This evidence is sufficient to support the determination that Defendant suffers from a
Mental Abnormality or Personality Disorder, specifically Paraphilia Not Otherwise Specified,
and therefore is a Sexually Violent Predator.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the Court did not err in classifying Defendant as a sexually violent
predator.
By the Court,
______________________
M. L. Ebert, Jr., J.
Jamie M. Keating, Esquire
Office of the District Attorney
Diane L. Morgan, Esquire
Office of the Public Defender
11
Id. at 4. NS testified that Defendant always carried a knife with him and therefore she was worried he would hurt
her more or kill her. Id. at 4 n. 15.
12
Id. at 4.
3