In the Interest of N.C.
74 A.3d 271
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2013Background
- N.C. (a minor) was adjudicated delinquent for aggravated indecent assault and received a one-year probation term to run consecutively to another case; the disposition was vacated and remanded.
- Mother observed concerning behavior in November 2011 after leaving the Bond Street house, and A.D. disclosed that N.C. touched her genitals; Mother initially attributed symptoms to a rash.
- A.D. was interviewed at the Western Pennsylvania Cares Center by a forensic interviewer with law enforcement and CYS present; the interview was recorded.
- Mother reported the incident to police within a week; Chief Young arranged Berger to perform the forensic interview; the interview occurred nineteen days after the incident.
- During trial, A.D. was four years old; she largely refused to testify or respond to questions; defense counsel objected to continued questioning, but the court overruled it.
- The Superior Court vacated the disposition, holding the trial court erred in admitting A.D.’s recorded statements due to Confrontation Clause concerns and improper availability findings; remand for a new adjudicatory hearing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Confrontation Clause admissibility of the interview | N.C. contends the interview was testimonial and violated confrontation rights. | State argued A.D. was available and TYHA allowed admission. | Admissibility violated Confrontation Clause; reversal and remand. |
| Whether A.D. was unavailable for cross-examination | A.D. was unavailable due to noncooperation; cannot be cross-examined. | Juvenile court found A.D. available for cross-examination. | A.D. was not available for cross-examination; admission erroneous. |
| Whether TYHA applies to admit testimonial statements | TYHA allows reliability-based admission only if non-testimonial or with unavailable witness. | TYHA permits admissibility if the child testifies or is unavailable and statements are reliable. | TYHA analysis did not control because statements were testimonial; exclusion required. |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Allshouse, 36 A.3d 163 (Pa. 2012) (testimonial nature determined by Crawford framework; ongoing emergency factor considered)
- Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (U.S. 2004) (establishes testimonial vs. non-testimonial distinction for confrontation rights)
- Davis v. Washington, 547 U.S. 813 (U.S. 2006) (applies Crawford framework to determine admissibility of statements in emergencies)