# Commonwealth v. Delbridge

> Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · October 21, 2004 · 580 Pa. 68

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9636884

## Case

- **Full name:** COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Appellee, v. Gerald John DELBRIDGE, Appellant
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** October 21, 2004
- **Citations:** 580 Pa. 68; 859 A.2d 1254; 2004 Pa. LEXIS 2488
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Nigro
- **Judges:** Zappala, Cappy, Castille, Nigro, Newman, Saylor, Eakin
- **Cited by:** 43 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9636884

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- 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 t…
- 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."
- stating, “[a]llegations are not evidence”

## Opinion text

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.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9636884. Public record. Not legal advice.