{"id":2155,"date":"2020-06-16T14:26:45","date_gmt":"2020-06-16T19:26:45","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/mitchellhamline.edu\/sex-offense-litigation-policy\/?p=2155"},"modified":"2020-06-22T15:27:40","modified_gmt":"2020-06-22T20:27:40","slug":"commonwealth-v-torsilieri-pa-2020","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/mitchellhamline.edu\/sex-offense-litigation-policy\/2020\/06\/16\/commonwealth-v-torsilieri-pa-2020\/","title":{"rendered":"Commonwealth v. Torsilieri (Pa. 2020)"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

Commonwealth v. Torsilieri, No. 37 MAP 2018 (Pa. 2020)<\/h2>\n

Nature of Case: <\/strong><\/strong> Mr. Torsilieri — the Appellee in this case — was convicted of a sex offense and, as such, was required to register as a sex offender under Pennsylvania’s sex offense registration scheme. He brought a post-conviction challenge alleging that, because Pennsylvania’s sex offense registration law essentially used an irrebutable presumption of dangerousness that if violated several constitutional provisions related to punishment as well as state constitutional provisions protecting reputation.<\/p>\n

The trial court agreed, and and held that based on expert evidence adducing that re-offense rates were lower, the provisions that the Appellee challenged were unconstitutional. The Commonwealth sought review.<\/p>\n

Holding: <\/strong> The Pennsylvania Supreme Court vacated the trial court’s opinion on the constitutional question, but did not reverse their opinion. Rather, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court observed that the Commonwealth did not submit evidence that was contradictory to the Appellee’s evidence related to re-offense rates. The Court remanded the case back to the trial court for further fact-finding on the question of re-offense rates.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

Case Documents<\/em><\/h2>\n