In the Interest of: N.J.E., a Minor
273 MDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Nov 18, 2016Background
- Appellant N.J.E., a juvenile, was charged with indecent assault of his younger brother while already under a consent-decree supervision for having exposed himself to a different minor brother.
- At the delinquency hearing, the Commonwealth introduced testimony from the victim and evidence about the earlier incident that had led to the consent decree.
- The juvenile court adjudicated N.J.E. delinquent and entered a dispositional order placing him in a residential sex-offender treatment program.
- N.J.E. appealed, arguing (1) the court erred by admitting evidence of the prior exposure incident and (2) the victim’s testimony was tainted by suggestive questioning and thus the victim was incompetent to testify.
- The certified record included a DVD of a forensic interview that was unplayable and no transcript of that interview.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of prior bad acts (common plan/signature) | Prior exposure evidence was improper propensity evidence and should be excluded | Evidence showed similar, distinctive conduct (both indecent assaults on younger brothers at home within a year) and was admissible for common plan | Evidence admissible under common-plan exception; juvenile court did not abuse discretion |
| Victim competency/taint from suggestive questioning | Victim’s memory was tainted by leading/suggestive questioning by forensic interviewer and ADA, rendering testimony incompetent | Questioning was not unduly suggestive; victim’s testimony intelligible and consistent; competency established | Court found no taint; competency determination not an abuse of discretion. Claim regarding forensic interview waived due to unplayable DVD/no transcript |
Key Cases Cited
- In re R.D., 44 A.3d 657 (Pa. Super. 2012) (standard for disturbing juvenile court dispositions)
- In re F.P., 878 A.2d 91 (Pa. Super. 2005) (admission of evidence reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- Commonwealth v. Hudson, 955 A.2d 1031 (Pa. Super. 2008) (prohibits using prior bad acts solely to show criminal character)
- Commonwealth v. Russell, 938 A.2d 1082 (Pa. Super. 2007) (Rule 404(b) purposes for admitting other-acts evidence)
- Commonwealth v. Tyson, 119 A.3d 353 (Pa. Super. 2015) (analysis for distinctiveness/signature and timing of other-acts evidence)
- Commonwealth v. Harvey, 526 A.2d 330 (Pa. 1987) (trial judge as factfinder can disregard prejudicial evidence)
- Commonwealth v. Brown, 486 A.2d 441 (Pa. Super. 1984) (presumption that judge sitting as factfinder ignores prejudicial evidence)
- Commonwealth v. Pena, 31 A.3d 704 (Pa. Super. 2011) (competency standard and review for child witnesses)
- Commonwealth v. Judd, 897 A.2d 1224 (Pa. Super. 2006) (presumption of witness competency)
- Commonwealth v. Delbridge, 855 A.2d 27 (Pa. 2003) (taint doctrine; when suggestive interviewing can render a child incompetent)
- Everett Cash Mut. Ins. Co. v. T.H.E. Ins. Co., 804 A.2d 31 (Pa. Super. 2002) (appellant’s obligation to ensure record contains materials for appellate review)