In the Interest of: J.J.B., a Minor
In the Interest of: J.J.B., a Minor No. 1035 MDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Jun 12, 2017Background
- Juvenile (16) was charged with two counts of indecent assault for alleged contact with a 9‑year‑old victim who is in the custody of her permanent guardians.
- A forensic videotaped interview of the 9‑year‑old victim was conducted on March 23, 2016 at a Child Advocacy Center; the Commonwealth sought to introduce the tape at adjudication.
- At prior hearings the victim either declined to discuss the incident or could not/ would not recall details; she appeared briefly on the stand but gave no substantive testimony about the alleged abuse.
- The juvenile court excluded the videotaped interview as hearsay, concluding admission would deny the juvenile his confrontation right because defense counsel had no opportunity to cross‑examine the victim about the incident.
- The Commonwealth appealed, arguing the videotape was admissible under the Tender Years Hearsay Act (TYHA) because the child had testified and thus was available for cross‑examination.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the victim's videotaped forensic interview is admissible | Commonwealth: TYHA permits admission because the child took the stand and was therefore available for cross‑examination | Juvenile: Tape is hearsay and admission violates Confrontation Clause because there was no opportunity to cross‑examine on the incident | Exclusion affirmed: admission would violate the Confrontation Clause where the child gave no substantive testimony and defense had no opportunity for effective cross‑examination |
| Whether the TYHA’s procedural requirements were met by the child’s brief in‑court appearance | Commonwealth: Child’s appearance satisfied TYHA subsection allowing prior statements when the child testifies | Juvenile: Appearance did not afford meaningful testimony on the charged conduct, so TYHA does not cure confrontation concerns | Court: Even if TYHA criteria may be considered separately, constitutional confrontation protections were not satisfied by the child’s non‑responsive testimony |
| Whether the videotape could be admitted under prior recorded recollection exception | Commonwealth: Alternatively, tape is a prior recorded recollection under Pa.R.E. 803.1(3) | Juvenile: Not applicable because the child declined to testify rather than merely lacking memory | Court: Did not reach deeply on this; agrees exception does not apply where declarant declined to testify |
Key Cases Cited
- Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004) (Confrontation Clause bars admission of testimonial hearsay unless declarant unavailable and defendant had prior opportunity for cross‑examination)
- In re N.C., 105 A.3d 1199 (Pa. 2014) (admission of videotaped forensic interview under TYHA violated juvenile’s confrontation right where child’s in‑court testimony was non‑substantive)
- Commonwealth v. Yohe, 79 A.3d 520 (Pa. 2013) (standard of review and Confrontation Clause principles regarding testimonial hearsay)
- Commonwealth v. Williams, 84 A.3d 680 (Pa. 2014) (discussing confrontation right as a trial right focused on opportunity for cross‑examination and witness demeanor)
- Commonwealth v. Walter, 93 A.3d 442 (Pa. 2014) (discussing application of TYHA)