Commonwealth v. Pena
31 A.3d 704
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2011Background
- Two juvenile victims (X.R., 14; A.R., 15) live with Pena and his girlfriend; both report sexual assaults by Pena in Aug 2007; victims have prior abuse histories by uncles Santos and Cortez; victims have mental health issues and medications; Pena sought taint hearing; trial court held taint and incompetence findings but order not docketed and later docketed; Commonwealth appealed within 30 days of docketing; court must decide timeliness and taint/competence rulings; appellate standard de novo for taint and abuse of discretion for competency decisions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of the Commonwealth’s appeal | Appeal timely under docketing rule | Timeliness governed by entry date; dismissal if untimely | Timely because docketed April 14, 2011, within 30 days of filing appeal |
| Whether taint/competence rulings were proper to preclude the victims | Taint applicable only to younger children; memory/credibility issues | Taint and incapacity should preclude testimony given ages at hearing | Taint ruling improper; 14–15-year-olds not legally tainted; competence issues to be weighed as credibility; remanded for further proceedings and vacatur of taint/competence findings |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Washington, 554 Pa. 559, 722 A.2d 643 (1998) (taint threshold is higher for younger children; standard reviewed de novo)
- Commonwealth v. Delbridge (Delbridge II), 580 Pa. 68, 859 A.2d 1254 (2004) (taint analysis limited; competency issues depend on age; review de novo)
- Commonwealth v. Delbridge (Delbridge I), 578 Pa. 641, 855 A.2d 27 (2003) (defines taint and three-part test for competency)
- Commonwealth v. Judd, 897 A.2d 1224 (Pa.Super.2006) (for fourteen-year-olds, memory credibility governs, not taint)
- Commonwealth v. Moore, 980 A.2d 647 (Pa.Super.2009) (age at trial governs taint relevance; fourteen-year-old threshold)
- Rosche v. McCoy, 397 Pa. 615, 156 A.2d 307 (1959) (adult-like presumption of competence for those fourteen and older)
- Yount v. Pennsylvania Department of Corrections, 600 Pa. 418, 966 A.2d 1115 (2009) (court should not act as advocate; proper procedure in motions)