The Pennsylvania Superior Court reversed the defendant’s designation as a Sexually Violent Predator (“SVP”). After his guilty plea, the trial court ordered the Sexual Offenders Assessment Board (“SOAB”) to evaluate the defendant to determine whether he should be designated as an SVP. In its report, the SOAB concluded that the defendant met the SVP designation criteria. The SOAB assessment is akin to a complaint or a charging document. It provides the requisite notice to the offender of the reasons that the Commonwealth contends that the offender meets the SVP criteria. While introduced as part of the record, it has no evidentiary value other than establishing that the statutory preconditions were satisfied. Proof of meeting the designation criteria must be shown by clear and convincing evidence at the hearing. Here, the Commonwealth attempted to prove its case based solely on a doctor’s testimony. On cross-examination, the doctor conceded that she did not interview the defendant, the victim, or watch the victim’s interview. She also acknowledged that her assessment and opinion were based solely on allegations to which the defendant did not plead guilty. The trial court found that the doctor could use hearsay evidence regarding unproven allegations to conclude that the defendant met the criteria to be an SVP. The Superior Court reversed. Relying on Commonwealth v. McClelland, and Commonwealth ex rel. Buchanan v. Verbonitz, the Court held that “if hearsay alone is insufficient to make out a prima facie case at a preliminary hearing, then the use of unproven allegations alone to designate a person as an SVP is also improper.”
