EAM
v. AMD III – Superior Court – October 26, 2017
The
standard of proof under the Protection of Victims of Sexual Violence or
Intimidation Act (PVSVIA), 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 62A01-62A20, is a preponderance of the
evidence, like the Protection from Abuse Act, 23 Pa. C.S. 6101 et seq., despite
the fact that the definition of “sexual violence” is defined by reference to
the Crimes Code, 18 Pa. C.S. ch. 31.
The
court said that the “argument that the PVSVIA requires a finding of proof
beyond a reasonable doubt, is untenable in light of the statutory framework as
a whole. Thus, we reject Appellant’s premise that a criminal conviction or
other finding of proof beyond a reasonable doubt is a prerequisite to a
successful PVSVIA claim.”
By
its express terms, the statute is meant to provide “safety and protection from
future interactions with” the person who abused them, “regardless of whether
they seek criminal prosecution....This chapter provides the victim with a civil
remedy requiring the offender to stay away from the victim....” [emphasis in original]
=============
If the case is
old, the link may have become stale and may not work, but you can use the case
name, court, and date to find the opinion in another source (e.g., Westlaw,
Lexis, Google Scholar)
