Commonwealth v. Hollingshead

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that an expert’s diagnosis of hebephilia, which is not recognized in the DSM-5, is sufficient to support a finding of mental abnormality
• holding it would not disturb trial court’s decision to credit Commonwealth’s expert witness over defense expert witness on a challenge to the sufficiency of an SVP determination
• holding it would not disturb trial court’s decision to credit Commonwealth’s expert witness over defense expert witness on a challenge to the sufficiency of an SVP determination based on a hebephilia diagnosis
• finding that the defense expert’s focus on risk of recidivism was misplaced because proof of “the risk of re-offending is but one factor to be considered when making an assessment; it is not an independent element” (citation omitted)
• stating that we will not disturb the trial court’s credibility determination
• rejecting claim that defendant’s expert testimony proved she was not an SVP where trial court chose to believe the Commonwealth’s expert over the defendant’s expert, and this Court “may not disturb that credibility determination”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).