explaining judicial competency investigations apply in cases where sexual abuse complainants are young children because child’s memory is uniquely susceptible to falsely implanted suggestions which may cause child difficulty in distinguishing fact from fantasy when called to testify
How later courts described this case
- explaining judicial competency investigations apply in cases where sexual abuse complainants are young children because child’s memory is uniquely susceptible to falsely implanted suggestions which may cause child difficulty in distinguishing fact from fantasy when called to testify
- stating that in the "narrow group of cases, involving allegations of sexual abuse inflicted upon children of tender years, the existence of taint is a threshold question to determining competency."
- “An expert may testify to assist the factfinder in evaluating competency in those cases where taint is present. Here, as no proof of taint was demonstrated, expert testimony was unnecessary.”
- stating, “[a]llegations are not evidence”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Justice NIGRO,
concurring.
I continue to believe, as more fully explained in my dissenting opinion in the first Commonwealth v. Delbridge, 578 Pa. 641, 855 A.2d 27 (2003) (“Delbridge I ”), that taint is a matter of credibility, not competency, and is therefore not the proper subject of either expert testimony or a competency hearing. On that basis, I disagreed with the majority’s decision in Delbridge I to remand the instant matter for a new competency hearing to explore Appellant’s allegations of taint. However, as such a competency hearing has now been held, consistent with the mandate of a majority of this Court, I certainly agree with the majority here that Appellant has failed to meet his burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that the children were, in fact, tainted.