clear and convincing standard in Pennsylvania

2025Commonwealth v. Hollingshead, 111 A.3d 186, 189 (Pa. Super. 2015) (citation and brackets omitted); see also Commonwealth v. Meals, 912 A.2d 213, 219 (Pa. 2006) (“The clear and convincing standard requires evidence that is so clear, direct, weighty, and convincing as to enable the trier of fact to come to a clear conviction, without hesitancy, of the truth of the precise facts in issue.”) (citation and brackets omitted).

2025The clear and convincing standard governing a determination of SVP status “requires evidence that is so clear, direct, weighty, and convincing as to enable the trier of fact to come to a clear conviction, without hesitancy, of the truth of the precise facts in issue.” Meals, supra, 912 A.2d at 219 (citation, original quotation marks, and original brackets omitted). - 10 - J-S01038-25 A “sexually violent predator” is statutorily defined as “a person who has been convicted of a sexually violent offense and who is determined to be a sexually violent predator under section 9799.58 (relating to ass

2016“The clear and convincing standard requires evidence that is so clear, direct, weighty and convincing as to enable [the trier of fact] to come to a clear conviction, without hesitancy, of the truth of the precise facts [at] issue.” Id. at 355 (quoting Commonwealth v. Plucinski, 868 A.2d 20, 25 (Pa.Super.2005)).

2015The clear and convincing standard requires evidence that is so clear, direct, weighty and convincing as to enable [the trier of fact] to come to a clear conviction, without hesitancy, of the truth of the precise facts [at] issue. ·----·- ·-------·---···-·-----·~-~-----~--- 4 Circulated 03/27/2015 02:05 PM Commonwealth v. Plucinski, 868 A.2d 20, 25 (Pa.Super.2005) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted).

2023“The clear and convincing standard requires evidence that is so clear, direct, weighty, and convincing as to enable the [trier of fact] to come to a clear [conclusion], without hesitancy, of the truth of the precise facts [in] issue.”12 Commonwealth v. Maldonado, 838 A.2d 710, 715 (Pa. 2003) (citation and quotations omitted). 12 Pennsylvania recognizes three standards of proof: (1) beyond a reasonable doubt; (2) clear and convincing evidence; and (3) preponderance of the evidence.

2021Moreover, The clear and convincing standard requires evidence that is “so clear, direct, weighty, and convincing as to enable the [trier of fact] to come to a clear conviction, without hesitancy, of the truth of the precise facts [in] issue.” Commonwealth v. Maldonado, 838 A.2d 710, 715 (Pa. 2003) (citations omitted).

2022The clear and convincing standard means the evidence "is so clear, direct, weighty, and convincing as to enable the trier of fact to come to aclear conviction, without hesitation, of the truth of the precise facts in issue." Matter of Sylvester, 555 A.2d 1202, 1203-1204 (Pa. 1989).

2021The clear and convincing standard means the evidence “is so clear, direct, weighty, and convincing as to enable the trier of fact to come to a clear conviction, without hesitation, of the truth of the precise facts in issue.” Matter of Sylvester, 555 A.2d 1202, 1203-1204 (Pa. 1989). §2511(a)(2) is not limited to affirmative nmusconduct.

2023“The clear and convincing standard requires evidence that is so clear, direct, weighty, and convincing as to enable the trier of fact to come to a clear conviction, without hesitancy, of the truth of the precise facts in issue.” Commonwealth v. Morgan, 16 A.3d 1165, 1168 (Pa. Super. 2011) (citation omitted).

2017S91013/16 The clear and convincing standard requires evidence that is “so clear, direct, weighty, and convincing as to enable the [trier of fact] to come to a clear conviction, without hesitancy, of the truth of the precise facts [in] issue.” Commonwealth v. Morgan, 16 A.3d 1165, 1168 (Pa.Super. 2011), appeal denied, 38 A.3d 824 (Pa. 2012), quoting Commonwealth v. Fuentes, 991 A.2d 935, 941-942 (Pa.Super. 2010) (en banc), appeal denied, 12 A.3d 370 (Pa. 2010) (citations omitted).

2023The standard of proof governing the determination of SVP status, i.e., “clear and convincing evidence,” has been described as an “intermediate” test, which is more exacting than a preponderance of the evidence test, but less exacting than proof beyond a reasonable doubt. *** The clear and convincing standard requires evidence that is “so clear, direct, weighty, and convincing as to enable the [trier of fact] to come to a clear conviction, without hesitancy, of the truth of the precise facts [in] issue.” Commonwealth v. Fuentes, 991 A.2d 935 , 941–42 (Pa. Super. 2010) (en banc) (citations omitt

2017S91013/16 The clear and convincing standard requires evidence that is “so clear, direct, weighty, and convincing as to enable the [trier of fact] to come to a clear conviction, without hesitancy, of the truth of the precise facts [in] issue.” Commonwealth v. Morgan, 16 A.3d 1165, 1168 (Pa.Super. 2011), appeal denied, 38 A.3d 824 (Pa. 2012), quoting Commonwealth v. Fuentes, 991 A.2d 935, 941-942 (Pa.Super. 2010) (en banc), appeal denied, 12 A.3d 370 (Pa. 2010) (citations omitted).

2025Commonwealth v. Hollingshead, 111 A.3d 186, 189 (Pa. Super. 2015) (citation and brackets omitted); see also Commonwealth v. Meals, 912 A.2d 213, 219 (Pa. 2006) (“The clear and convincing standard requires evidence that is so clear, direct, weighty, and convincing as to enable the trier of fact to come to a clear conviction, without hesitancy, of the truth of the precise facts in issue.”) (citation and brackets omitted).

2023Commonwealth v. Hollingshead, 111 A.3d 186, 189 (Pa. Super. 2015) (citation and brackets omitted, emphasis added); see also Commonwealth v. Meals, 912 A.2d 213, 219 (Pa. 2006) (“The clear and convincing standard requires evidence that is so clear, direct, weighty, and convincing as to enable the trier of fact to come to a clear conviction, without hesitancy, of the truth of the precise facts in issue.” (citation and brackets omitted)).

2018The clear and convincing standard of proof is sufficiently met if the evidence presented was "so clear, direct, weighty, and convincing as to enable the jury to come to a clear conviction, without hesitancy, of the truth of the precise facts in issue." Lessner v. Rubinson, 592 A.2d 678, 681 (Pa. 1991).

2001The clear and convincing standard requires evidence that is “so clear, direct, weighty, and convincing as to enable the jury to come to a clear conviction, without hesitancy, of the truth of the precise facts of the issue.” Lessner v. Rubinson, 527 Pa. 393 , 592 A.2d 678, 681 (1991).

2015Co., 566 Pa. 464, 476 , 781 A.2d 1172, 1179 (2001) (quotingLessnerv.

2015Co., 566 Pa. 464, 476 , 781 A.2d 1172, 1179 (2001) (quotingLessnerv.

2016“The clear and convincing standard requires evidence that is so clear, direct, weighty and convincing as to enable [the trier of fact] to come to a clear conviction, without hesitancy, of the truth of the precise facts [at] issue.” Id. at 355 (quoting Commonwealth v. Plucinski, 868 A.2d 20, 25 (Pa.Super.2005)).

2015The clear and convincing standard requires evidence that is so clear, direct, weighty and convincing as to enable [the trier of fact] to come to a clear conviction, without hesitancy, of the truth of the precise facts [at] issue.” Commonwealth v. Prendes, 97 A.3d 337, 355 (Pa. Super. 2014) (citations omitted).

2025“The clear and convincing standard means the evidence was so clear, direct, weighty, and convincing that the trier of fact could come to a clear conviction, without hesitating, concerning the facts at issue.” Commonwealth v. Feucht, 955 A.2d 377, 380 (Pa. Super. 2008) (citation omitted).

2024“The clear and convincing standard means the evidence was so clear, direct, weighty, and convincing that the trier of fact could come to a clear conviction, without hesitating, concerning the facts at issue.” Commonwealth v. Feucht, 955 A.2d 377, 380 (Pa. Super. 2008) (citation omitted). -6- J-S41007-23 An SVP is defined as “an individual who committed a sexually violent offense” and “who is determined to be a sexually violent predator ... due to a mental abnormality or personality disorder that makes the individual likely to engage in predatory sexually violent offenses.” 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9799.

1986Our Supreme Court has defined the clear and convincing standard as follows: “[T]he witnesses must be found to be credible, that the facts to which they testify are distinctly remembered and the details thereof narrated exactly and in due order, and that their testimony is so clear, direct, weighty, and convincing as to enable the jury to come to a clear conviction, without hesitancy, of the truth of the precise facts in issue.” In Re Estate of Fickert, 461 Pa. 653, 658 , 337 A.2d 592, 594 (1975) quoting In La Rocca Trust, 411 Pa. 633, 640 , 192 A.2d 409, 413 (1963).

1986Our Supreme Court has defined the clear and convincing standard as follows: “[T]he witnesses must be found to be credible, that the facts to which they testify are distinctly remembered and the details thereof narrated exactly and in due order, and that their testimony is so clear, direct, weighty, and convincing as to enable the jury to come to a clear conviction, without hesitancy, of the truth of the precise facts in issue.” In Re Estate of Fickert, 461 Pa. 653, 658 , 337 A.2d 592, 594 (1975) quoting In La Rocca Trust, 411 Pa. 633, 640 , 192 A.2d 409, 413 (1963).

2025Imposing this high burden of proof is “one way to impress the factfinder with the importance of the decision and thereby perhaps to reduce the chances that inappropriate terminations will be ordered.” Id. at 764-65 (quoting Addington, 441 U.S. at 427 ); see also In re T.R., 465 A.2d 624 (Pa. 1983) (adopting the clear and convincing standard of proof following Santosky).

2025Imposing this high burden of proof is “one way to impress the factfinder with the importance of the decision and thereby perhaps to reduce the chances that inappropriate terminations will be ordered.” Id. at 764-65 (quoting Addington, 441 U.S. at 427 ); see also In re T.R., 465 A.2d 624 (Pa. 1983) (adopting the clear and convincing standard of proof following Santosky).

1983In a recently filed opinion of this Court, we concluded that “the clear and convincing standard must be applied to all cases in which appeals had not been exhausted at the time the Scmtosky decision was rendered.” In Re: Adoption of M.E.T., Appeal of: M.E.T.G., 313 Pa.Super. 316 , —, 459 A.2d 1247, 1249 (1983).

1983In a recently filed opinion of this Court, we concluded that “the clear and convincing standard must be applied to all cases in which appeals had not been exhausted at the time the Scmtosky decision was rendered.” In Re: Adoption of M.E.T., Appeal of: M.E.T.G., 313 Pa.Super. 316 , —, 459 A.2d 1247, 1249 (1983).

2016See Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745, 756-69 , 102 S. Ct. 1388, 1396-1403 (1982); see also Commonwealth v. Williams, 557 Pa. 285, 307 , 733 A.2d 593, 605 (1999) (expressing that the clear-and-convincing standard is appropriate even when interests “more substantial than the mere loss of money” are involved (internal quotation marks and citations omitted)).

2016See Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745, 756-69 , 102 S. Ct. 1388, 1396-1403 (1982); see also Commonwealth v. Williams, 557 Pa. 285, 307 , 733 A.2d 593, 605 (1999) (expressing that the clear-and-convincing standard is appropriate even when interests “more substantial than the mere loss of money” are involved (internal quotation marks and citations omitted)).

1997Finken v. Roop, 234 Pa. Super. 155, 175 , 339 A.2d 764, 774 (1975) (the burden upon the Commonwealth in a civil commitment proceeding must be equal to or greater than the clear and convincing standard); and In re Adoption of J.J., 511 Pa. 590, 594 , 515 A.2d 883, 885-86 (1986) (burden on party seeking involuntary termination of parental rights is to establish facts by clear and convincing evidence).

1997Finken v. Roop, 234 Pa. Super. 155, 175 , 339 A.2d 764, 774 (1975) (the burden upon the Commonwealth in a civil commitment proceeding must be equal to or greater than the clear and convincing standard); and In re Adoption of J.J., 511 Pa. 590, 594 , 515 A.2d 883, 885-86 (1986) (burden on party seeking involuntary termination of parental rights is to establish facts by clear and convincing evidence).

2026See In re Hancock, 719 A.2d 1053, 1057-58 (Pa. Super. 1998) (in the context of the Mental Health Procedures Act (“MHPA”), applying a clear and convincing standard of proof to “help balance the need to provide mental health treatment against the individual's rights by providing necessary treatment for persons who are mentally ill.”). -7- J-A24030-25 In Sell, supra, the U.S. Supreme Court provided a framework for courts to apply when presented with a request to compel the involuntary administration of medication to a mentally ill defendant to render the defendant competent to stand trial for ser

2015See In re T.J., supra; In re Hancock, supra. We conclude the trial court erred as a matter of law, however, in determining the evidence of record is sufficient under that standard to show that Appellant presented a clear and present danger to herself as averred in the 302 application.

2024Stevens v. Dep’t of Transp., Bureau of Driver Licensing, 309 A.3d 193 , 204 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2024); Fell v. Dep’t of Transp., Bureau of Motor Vehicles, 925 A.2d 232, 239 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2007); Fagan v. Dep’t of Transp., Bureau of Motor Vehicles, 875 A.2d 1195, 1199 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2005).5 In this instance, Lugo failed to offer any evidence that could be used to successfully defeat the Department’s efforts to suspend his driver’s license.

2007These include uncorroborated testimony that a motorist’s vehicle had uninterrupted coverage, Fagan, 875 A.2d at 1199 , and insurance cards by themselves, Capone v. PennDOT, 875 A.2d 1228, 1231 (Pa. Commw. 2005).

2021While the party seeking an initial adjudication of incapacity bears the burden of proving incapacity under a clear and convincing standard, an incapacitated person “has the burden of establishing that he has regained capacity . . . by a fair preponderance of the evidence.” In re Navarra, 185 A.3d 342, 356 (Pa. Super. 2018) (citation and footnote omitted). “[I]t is certainly possible that an [incapacitated person] may be unable to manage his estate and, yet, be capable of making reasonable choices concerning his personal life.” Berry v. Berry, 197 A.3d 788, 798 (Pa. Super. 2018) (citation omitt

2020Navarra, 185 A.3d at 356 n.7.

2021Fickert, 461 Pa, 653, 337 A.2d 592 (1975), The clear and convincing standard is evidence that is so clear, direct, weighty and convincing as to enable the jury to come to a clear conviction, without hesitancy, of the truth of the matter.

1986Our Supreme Court has defined the clear and convincing standard as follows: “[T]he witnesses must be found to be credible, that the facts to which they testify are distinctly remembered and the details thereof narrated exactly and in due order, and that their testimony is so clear, direct, weighty, and convincing as to enable the jury to come to a clear conviction, without hesitancy, of the truth of the precise facts in issue.” In Re Estate of Fickert, 461 Pa. 653, 658 , 337 A.2d 592, 594 (1975) quoting In La Rocca Trust, 411 Pa. 633, 640 , 192 A.2d 409, 413 (1963).

2021However, we have also determined that “while the initial burden of proving incapacity is a clear and convincing standard, the incapacitated person has the burden of establishing that he [or she] has regained capacity only by a fair preponderance of the evidence.” In re Estate of Rosengarten, 871 A.2d 1249, 1255 (Pa. Super. 2005).

2018Thirteen years after this second statutory scheme came into existence, we held that the burden of proof in incapacity proceedings remained the same as under the first scheme: "[W]hile the initial burden of proving incapacity is a clear and convincing standard ... the incapacitated person has the burden of establishing that he has regained capacity only by a fair preponderance of the evidence." 7 In Re Estate of Rosengarten , 871 A.2d 1249 , 1255 (Pa. Super. 2005) (citing Porter ).