In the Interest of: N.C., Appeal of: Commonwealth, 105 A.3d 1199

Commonwealth appealed after the Superior Court vacated the adjudicatory order and remanded for a new hearing.
A.D., a four-year-old minor, made out-of-court statements about N.C.’s alleged touching, including a videotaped forensic interview.
The Commonwealth sought to admit TYHA-based statements, including the complete forensic interview, at the adjudicatory hearing.
The juvenile court allowed certain declarations to be admitted if A.D. testified and found the interview admissible under TYHA.
At the May 10, 2012 adjudicatory hearing, A.D. displayed limited verbal participation, ultimately becoming uncooperative, prompting the court to admit the recorded forensic interview over defense objections.
The Superior Court later held that admitting the recorded interview violated N.C.’s Confrontation Clause rights because A.D. was unavailable for cross-examination.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether admission of the videotaped forensic interview violated the Confrontation Clause.	Commonwealth argued that Crawford allows testimonial statements when the witness is unavailable or had prior cross-examination.	N.C. argued A.D. was not available for cross-examination and the interview was testimonial, so its admission violated Crawford.	Yes; admission violated the Confrontation Clause and the ruling was affirmed.

Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004) (testimonial vs non-testimonial; cross-examination requirement when unavailable)
Davis v. Washington, 547 U.S. 813 (2006) (forensic interview as testimonial evidence when applicable)
Commonwealth v. Allshouse, 614 Pa. 229 (2012) (framework for Crawford/Confrontation in Pennsylvania)
Commonwealth v. Yohe, 79 A.3d 520 (2013) (Crawford-based Confrontation Clause analysis in Pa.)
State v. Nyhammer, 197 N.J. 383 (2009) (cross-examination opportunities and admissibility of recorded statements)