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 SAYLOR,
dissenting.
Although I take no issue with the majority’s substantive analysis, fundamental fairness would seem to me to dictate that Appellant should be afforded some opportunity to be *80 heard in an appellate court concerning the trial court’s opinion on remand. Since the majority deprives Appellant of any opportunity in this regard, see Majority Opinion at 78 n. 7, 859 A.2d at 1261 n. 7,1 am unable to join its opinion or disposition.