# Commonwealth v. Ludwig

> Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · September 8, 1987 · 366 Pa. Super. 361

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9708039

## Case

- **Full name:** COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Appellee, v. Paul LUDWIG, Appellant
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** September 8, 1987
- **Citations:** 366 Pa. Super. 361; 531 A.2d 459; 581 A.2d 459; 1987 Pa. Super. LEXIS 8969
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Olszewski
- **Judges:** Cirillo, Brosky, Wieand, Olszewski, Sole, Montemuro, Tamilia, Popovich, Johnson
- **Cited by:** 20 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/9708039

## Opinion text

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.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9708039. Public record. Not legal advice.