Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCP-21-CR-2421-2005 COMMONWEAL TH IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. WILBUR CYRUS BROWN CP-21-CR-2421-2005 IN RE: SEXUALLY VIOLENT PREDATOR DETERMINATION OPINION AND ORDER OF COURT Bayley, J., December 18, 2006:-- On June 8, 2006, defendant, Wilbur Cyrus Brown, entered a plea of guilty to a count of rape, a felony in the first degree.1 On December 14,2006, a hearing was conducted to determine whether, under Megan's Law 11,42 PaC.S. Sections 9791- 9799, defendant is a "sexually violent predator." "Predatory" is defined in Section 9792 as: "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." Section 9792 defines "sexually violent predator" as: 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. . .. (Emphasis added.) A "mental abnormality" is defined in Section 9792 as: "A congenital or acquired condition of a person that affects the emotional or volitional capacity of the person in a manner that predisposes that person to the commission of criminal sexual acts to a degree that makes the person a menace to the health and safety of other persons." 118 PaC.S. S 3121(1). CP-21-CR-2421-2005 The Commonwealth has the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that defendant is a sexually violent predator. 42 Pa.C.S. S 9795.4(e)(3). 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. See Lessner v. Rubinson, 527 Pa. 393 (1991). In Commonwealth v. Krouse, 799 A.2d 835 (Pa. Super. 2002), the Superior Court of Pennsylvania stated: [W]e strongly recommend that trial courts present specific findings of fact regarding the findings necessary for a SVP determination as defined in Section 9792 and the factors specified in Section 9795.4(b) which the legislature has deemed relevant. Section 9795.4(b) of Megan's Law II specifies that an assessment shall include, but not be limited to, the following: (1) Facts of the current offense, including: (i) Whether the offense involved multiple victims. (ii) Whether the individual exceeded the means necessary to achieve the offense. (iii) The nature of the sexual contact with the victim. (iv) Relationship of the individual to the victim. (v) Age of the victim. (vi) Whether the offense included a display of unusual cruelty by the individual during the commission of the crime. (vii) The mental capacity of the victim. (2) Prior offense history, including: (i) The individual's prior criminal record. (ii) Whether the individual completed any prior sentences. (iii) Whether the individual participated in available programs for sexual offenders. (3) Characteristics of the individual, including: (i) Age of the individual. (ii) Use of illegal drugs by the individual. -2- CP-21-CR-2421-2005 (iii) Any mental illness, mental disability or mental abnormality. (iv) Behavioral characteristics that contribute to the individual's conduct. (4) Factors that are supported in a sexual offenders assessment filed as criteria reasonably related to the risk of reoffense. We will review the criteria set forth in Section 9795.4(b) of Megan's Law II. WHETHER THE OFFENSE INVOLVED MULTIPLE VICTIMS The offense was against one victim. WHETHER DEFENDANT EXCEEDED THE MEANS NECESSARY TO ACHIEVE THE OFFENSES Defendant, using a gun, threatened death to achieve the offense. THE NATURE OF THE SEXUAL CONTACT WITH THE VICTIM The facts set forth in the colloquy in support of the plea were: At the time the victim. . . was walking home from a friend's house, and defendant approached her, pulled out a black handgun and pointed it in her face. He then grabbed her and put the gun into her back and forced her into the bushes on the southwest corner of the Church of the Nazarene in New Cumberland. Defendant then demanded money from the victim. She told him that she did not have any money and offered him credit cards instead. The defendant took off her shirt and bra to look for the money. He started to take off her pants, but she told him she was menstruating. So he said that she had to, "suck my dick." She pleaded with him not to make her do it for fear that she would catch something. Defendant then shoved the gun into her mouth and told her to do what he wanted or he was, "going to blow her brains out." She then complied with his demands to perform oral sex on him. While performing the act, defendant told the victim to rub his nuts. He then ejaculated. Defendant then walked away and told her not to look at him as he walked away. Defendant's DNA matched what was found on the victim's clothing. Defendant gave an extended oral statement to the police and admitted that he was responsible for this crime. Defendant stated that he had asked for money from the victim because he had to pay bills for his wife after they had separated, and he was broke. He also stated that he has -3- CP-21-CR-2421-2005 an evil side like Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. He stated he watched a documentary of the Son of Sam, and he also stated that people should try to figure out why people like he and the Son of Sam commit these crimes. RELATIONSHIP OF DEFENDANT TO THE VICTIM None. AGE OF THE VICTIM 43. WHETHER THE OFFENSE INCLUDED A DISPLAY OF UNUSUAL CRUELTY BY DEFENDANT DURING THE COMMISSION OF THE CRIME The offenses did not display unusual cruelty by defendant during the commission of the crime. THE MENTAL CAPACITY OF THE VICTIM The victim had no abnormal mental condition. She was intoxicated at the time of the offense. PRIOR CRIMINAL RECORD None. WHETHER DEFENDANT HAS COMPLETED ANY PRIOR SENTENCES Defendant has never been sentenced. WHETHER DEFENDANT PARTICIPATED IN AVAILABLE PROGRAMS FOR SEXUAL OFFENDERS Defendant has not participated in any programs for sexual offenders. AGE OF DEFENDANT -4- CP-21-CR-2421-2005 Defendant was 43 at the time of the offense. USE OF ILLEGAL DRUGS BY DEFENDANT There is no evidence of illegal use of drugs by defendant. ANY MENTAL ILLNESS. MENTAL DISABILITY OR MENTAL ABNORMALITY Defendant meets the criteria for a diagnosis of Paraphilia NOS, Nonconsent. BEHAVIORAL CHARACTERISTICS OF DEFENDANT THAT CONTRIBUTED TO HIS CONDUCT Anger and hostility toward women. FACTORS THAT ARE SUPPORTED IN A SEXUAL OFFENDERS ASSESSMENT FILED AS CRITERIA REASONABLY RELATED TO THE RISK OF REOFFENSE Defendant admitted to the police, in detail, the commission of other sexual assaults against women, similar to the assault in the present case, on September 26, 2002, July 14, 2004, October 13,2004, November 29,2004, January 4,2005, May 27, 2005, August 22, 2005, and two other occasions for which the dates are not known. He also admitted that he attempted to commit a sexual assault on a woman on April 29, 2005.2 Defendant's anger and hostility toward women, his mental abnormality of L This court held in Commonwealth v. Wright, 54 Cumberland L.J. 149 (2005), following Commonwealth v. Krouse, 799 A.2d 835 (Pa. Super. 2002), that unproven allegations of offenses are not admissible in a hearing to determine whether a defendant is a sexually violent predator. In Krouse, the Superior Court stated: . . . that a determination that a defendant is a sexually violent predator cannot be based upon unproven allegations that are not established by the factual basis for a guilty plea and that are not supported by the nature of the charges to which a defendant has pled guilty, especially when the defendant consistently has denied the unproven allegations. Commonwealth v. Berrigan, 369 Pa.Super. 145,535 A.2d 91 (1987) (en bane) (when imposing sentence, the sentencing court is not permitted to rely upon denied allegations established only through hearsay). This procedure is equivalent to the prohibited procedure whereby a sentencing court, when sentencing the defendant, has relied upon the facts of a crime which the jury determined the defendant has not committed. See Commonwealth v. Smithton, 429 Pa.Super. 55, 631 A.2d 1053 (1993). The determination of sexually violent predator status carries with it serious, life-long -5- CP-21-CR-2421-2005 Paraphilia NOS, Nonconsent and his repeated sexual assaults on women, reasonably relate to the risk of reoffense. Jane A. Yeatter has a Master of Science degree in clinical psychology and is certified by the State of Virginia as a sex offender treatment provider. She is a member of the Sex Offenders Assessment Board of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. She conducted the assessment in this case. We agree with her professional opinion that defendant has a mental abnormality of Paraphilia NOS, Nonconsent that predisposes him to engage in predatory sexually violent offenses. Considering the weight of all of the evidence, the Section 9795.4(b) factors, and the professional opinion of Jane Yeatter, the Commonwealth has proven by clear and convincing evidence that defendant is a sexually violent predator. Accordingly, the following order is entered. ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this day of December, 2006, we find that defendant, Wilbur Cyrus Brown, is a sexually violent predator. By the Court, Edgar B. Bayley, J. Christylee Peck, Esquire For the Commonwealth repercussions, and must be based upon facts of record, and not mere allegations of wrongful conduct, no matter how egregious. (Emphasis added.) In the present case, we accepted evidence of the detailed statements that defendant made to the police admitting the commission of other sexual assaults. -6- CP-21-CR-2421-2005 Ellen K. Barry, Esquire F or Defendant Probation :sal -7- COMMONWEAL TH IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. WILBUR CYRUS BROWN CP-21-CR-2421-2005 IN RE: SEXUALLY VIOLENT PREDATOR DETERMINATION ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this day of December, 2006, we find that defendant, Wilbur Cyrus Brown, is a sexually violent predator. By the Court, Edgar B. Bayley, J. Christylee Peck, Esquire For the Commonwealth Ellen K. Barry, Esquire F or Defendant Probation :sal