Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

2007 Pa. Super. 201

929 A.2d 648

Commonwealth v. Geiter

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Decided July 9, 2007

This page is marked noindex.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · decided 2007-07-09

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“The precise line of inquiry for the Board’s expert, as well as any other expert who testifies at an SVP hearing, is whether the defendant satisfied the definition of sexually violent predator set out in the statute, that is, whether he or she suffers from a mental abnormality or personality disorder that makes him or her more likely to engage in predatory sexually violent offenses. The salient inquiry to be made by the trial court is the identification of the impetus behind the commission of the crime and extent to which the offender is likely to reoffend. In this context, a “mental abnormality” is 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.” 42 Pa.C.S.A. 9792. Moreover, “predatory” conduct, which is indispensable to the designation, is defined as an “act directed at a stranger or at a person with whom a relationship has been initiated, maintained or promoted, in whole or in part, in order to facilitate or support victimization.” [42 Pa.C.SA. § 9792].”

quoted by 1 later decision, including 2011 Pa. Super. 59 - Commonwealth v. Morgan

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 2007-07-09

How this case has been cited

Cited by 9 later decisions — most recently March 2024

9 state decisions

50200720102020decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1CONCURRING STATEMENT BY

KLEIN, J.:

¶2¶ 1 Dr. Stein’s diagnosis was that Geiter suffered from the personality disorder, pedophilia, and all pedophiles are likely to engage in predatory sexually violent offenses in the future. Therefore, the third criterion, that Geiter was likely to reof-fend, was part of the evidence and justifies the SVP classification. Therefore, I do not believe it appropriate in this case to decide whether or not someone can be classified as an SVP absent evidence that the offender is likely to reoffend. This significant question should not be decided in dicta.

/2007/pasuper/201 · .json · Public domain