Skip to main content

Commonwealth v. Dixon

Citations

  • 907 A.2d 533
  • 2006 Pa. Super. 221
  • 2006 Pa. Super. LEXIS 2160

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

  • stating that although experts must offer an opinion as to whether an individual is likely to re-offend, “the precise manner of meeting this burden is not analyzed in terms of a strict, three-prong test”
  • the Commonwealth’s expert did not review trial transcripts when determining the defendant to be an SVP
  • “At the core of the expert’s assessment is a detailed list of factors, which are [mandated] and are designed as, ‘criteria by which . . . [the] likelihood [of reoffense] may be gauged.’”
  • rejecting a “strict, three-prong test”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Hudock, McCaffery, Sole

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

9 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

9 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

Other cases with this name

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.