Commonwealth v. Williams, 624 Pa. 183

Appellant Williams was charged with rape of a child, indecent assault, corruption of minors, endangering the welfare of children, and indecent exposure relating to an eight-year-old victim, K.H.
The Commonwealth moved for testimony by contemporaneous alternative method under 42 Pa.C.S. § 5985 to allow K.H. to testify via closed-circuit television at a preliminary hearing.
The trial court sought professional input and ultimately ordered the victim’s mother to authorize disclosure of confidential records for defense review, rather than allowing independent examination of K.H. by defense counsel.
The trial court granted a defense continuance after Dr. Hill testified for the Commonwealth, but then allowed defense access to KH.’s records to rebut Hill’s testimony, which the Superior Court reversed as beyond § 5985(a) scope.
The Commonwealth appealed, and this Court held that § 5985 does not compel defense examination of the child or defense rebuttal expert testimony, and that the § 5985 hearing is not a constitutional-confrontation violation, reaffirming Craig’s framework.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether § 5985 permits defense rebuttal expert testimony	Williams contends a § 5985 hearing allows defense expert rebuttal	Commonwealth argues no defense expert rebuttal right under § 5985(a.2)(2)	Defense rebuttal right not required; no defense expert testimony allowed during § 5985 hearing
Whether confrontation rights protect access to mental health records in § 5985	Williams asserts confrontation/due process require access to KH.’s mental health records	Commonwealth argues records are not at issue beyond the distress determination	Confrontation rights not violated; § 5985 balancing remains permissible without broad mental-health inquiry
Whether § 5985 hearing is a critical stage requiring counsel under Sixth Amendment	Williams argues § 5985 is a critical stage necessitating counsel and defense presentation	Commonwealth contends it is not a critical stage for constitutional rights beyond confrontation	§ 5985 hearing is not a critical stage; no right to defense access to broader records or rebuttal testimony
Whether the trial court abused discretion by expanding the § 5985 inquiry beyond its narrow scope	Williams claims fishing expedition into child’s mental health history	Commonwealth argues court may consider relevant information to assess distress	Court abused discretion by broadening inquiry; limited to distress determination and confrontation elements

Maryland v. Craig, 497 U.S. 836 (1990) (creates test balancing for child testimony outside courtroom presence; preserves core confrontation elements)
Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004) (overruled traditional reliability grounds; articulates confrontation framework)
Commonwealth v. Delbridge, 855 A.2d 27 (Pa. 2003) (child competency and confrontation in relevance context)
Commonwealth v. Bergdoll, 858 A.2d 185 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2005) (Pennsylvania constitutional confrontation convergence with 2003 amendment)
Commonwealth v. Cox, 983 A.2d 666 (Pa. 2009) (confrontation rights and critical stages applicability)