DOES A SINGLE, PRESENT CONVICTION OF A VIOLENT CRIME AMOUNT TO A “HISTORY” OF VIOLENT BEHAVIOR?
The question presented in Cullen-Doyle was whether a single conviction for burglary – which the parties agreed was a crime demonstrating violent behavior – constituted a history of present or past violent behavior.
The matter concerned a statutory risk reduction incentive (RRRI) program, eligibility for which requires that the offender lack a “history of present or past violent behavior.”
Acknowledging that there was some doubt raised concerning the proper interpretation of the word “history,” the Court found that the General Assembly did not intend to preclude eligibility under the present circumstances, i.e. – a single, present conviction.
Additionally, the Court concluded that the rule of lenity bolstered the conclusion that a single, present conviction for a violent crime does not constitute a history of violent behavior. And, since the Court found the RRRI Act was a statute that has the effect of imposing a sentence, the Court concluded that it is subject to the rule of lenity. As such, “any ambiguity surrounding the meaning of the word ‘history’ should be resolved in favor of those seeking admission into the program.”
Commonwealth v. Sean Cullen-Doyle, No. 16 WAP 2016 (Pa. July 20, 2017).
DISCLAIMER – The information contained in this article is for general guidance on the subject matter only. The application and impact of laws can vary widely based on the specific facts involved. Given the changing nature of laws, rules and regulations, and the inherent hazards of electronic communication, there may be delays, omissions or inaccuracies in information in this article. Case summaries are primarily excerpted directly from the decisions authored by the Courts. The decisions are cited and linked and the reader is encouraged to read the entire decision. Accordingly, the information in this article is provided with the understanding that the authors and publishers are not herein engaged in rendering legal or other professional advice and services. As such, it should NOT be used as a substitute for consultation with a McMahon Winters Soto-Ortiz Law Firm attorney. Before making any decision or taking any action, you should always consult with a McMahon Winters Soto-Ortiz Law Firm attorney.