Opinion

Commonwealth v. Ludwig

  • 366 Pa. Super. 361
  • 531 A.2d 459
  • 581 A.2d 459
  • 1987 Pa. Super. LEXIS 8969
Court
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Filed
Sep 8, 1987
Status
Published
Author
Olszewski
On the bench
Cirillo, Brosky, Wieand, Olszewski, Sole, Montemuro, Tamilia, Popovich, Johnson
Cited by
20 cases

The opinion

OLSZEWSKI, Judge,

dissenting:

I am generally in agreement with the Dissenting Opinion of President Judge Cirillo and, consequently, join in that opinion. I write separately to note that I am not unmindful of the very serious problems and unique considerations which arise when a young child is the victim of abuse and must testify in court. To that extent, I share in the concerns of the majority. In this case, however, the Commonwealth has not shown that the procedure utilized was necessary to prevent harm to the child and to ensure her trial testimony. Thus, the Commonwealth has not justified the creation of an exception to an accused’s right to face his accuser as guaranteed by both the United States Constitution and the Pennsylvania Constitution. For this reason, I respectfully dissent.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.