Commonwealth v. Smith
567 A.2d 1080
Pa.
1989
Check Treatment

*1 force; investigation use and the methods of used to confirm or dispel suspicions. Commonwealth v. Douglass, 372 Pa.Super. 539 A.2d at 421. case,

In the instant the basis for the detention was a violation; traffic stop the duration of the approximate- was (15) (20) minutes; fifteen ly twenty and the location was public street. Haupt transported; was not no restraints used; show, threat, were made no Trooper Toohey trooper use of force. The detained Haupt only for the period required transmit his motor vehicle and weapon information, and issue a for the warning exhaust violation. The record that the trooper reveals asked a moderate num- questions Haupt’s ber ascertain and to identity try confirming “obtain information dispelling officer’s suspicions” Haupt committing a crime involving See Berkemer v. McCarty, supra; Pennsyl- weapon. Bruder, vania v. supra. Trooper Toohey When satisfied himself that given answers did not provide probable arrest, cause for Haupt was released. See Berkemer v. Bruder, McCarty, supra; Pennsylvania v. supra. Consid- ering detention, totality Haupt’s circumstances of we find that the actions of the trooper constituted an detention, Miranda investigative warnings were not required.

Order relinquished. reversed. Jurisdiction Pennsylvania, Appellant,

COMMONWEALTH of SMITH, Harold W. Jr.

Superior Pennsylvania. Court of April

Submitted 1989.

Filed Dec. 1989. *3 Rosini, Shamokin, J. Asst. Dist. Anthony Atty., for Com. Watsontown, Allen K. Neyhard, appellee. TAMILIA, MELINSON, Before POPOVICH JJ. MELINSON, Judge:

This is a appeal Commonwealth from an Order dated the November 1988 in Court of Common Pleas of The County. granted Northumberland trial court Order Smith, Jr., appellee, Harold W. the affirm. new trial. We charged exposure Smith was with indecent and corruption of minors for alleged involving incidents his seven-year-old trial, At stepdaughter. alleged Smith’s the victim testified. Following the child’s testimony, the Commonwealth presented the of a family therapist who coun- seled the child following alleged the incidents. The counsel- or, Ms. asked on Wiley, was direct examination she whether had “an as to opinion ability to in character tell [the child’s] as to then offered truth.” The counselor the telling No objection child’s character for the truth. the con- Smith was attorney. Subsequently, Smith’s raised counsel withdrew from charged. of the crimes Trial victed motions. filing post-verdict after representation Smith’s trial, motions, requesting a new post-verdict Supplemental of trial alleging filed the ineffectiveness by Smith were the expert’s opinion as to failing object counsel for truth-telling of the child. capabilities seven-year-old for a new trial on this granted trial court Smith’s motion appeal of the trial ground. is the Commonwealth’s Order. court’s that argues “the lower appeal,

On for a granting erred motion new trial court [Smith’s] assistance of counsel as Com- the basis ineffective on the infringe did monwealth’s fact[-]finder’s obligation to determine the witnesses testimony regarding introduction of character victim, error, if in beyond was harmless truthfulness disagree. a reasonable doubt.” We claim ineffec There are three elements to a valid First, inquire assistance of counsel. we into whether tive arguable merit, is, underlying claim is of whether questionable legal omission disputed action or merit, If arguable is of we underlying soundness. claim ask whether counsel had reasonable basis for any then designed action or omission which was questionable did, his If our ends. inquiry effectuate client’s interests. he *4 not, will be relief if he can granted If defendant course of conduct was improper demonstrate that counsel’s Durst, v. his interests. Commonwealth 522 prejudicial Davis, Commonwealth (1989); 518 2, Pa. 559 A.2d 504 (1988). 77, 541 Pa. A.2d 315 law, gener of a only

Under evidence Pennsylvania admissi community for truthfulness in the reputation al 286 Stiefel, testimony. as character ble 259, (1981) (Vander Voort, dis- A.2d 981 J. Pa.Super. 428 630 see also Commonwealth v. Payne,

senting); 101, 205 Pa. Commonwealth v. Gaddy, (1903); 54 A. 489 303, 468 Pa. J., Interest Lawrence (1976); 362 A.2d 217 310 351, 456 (1983); A.2d 647 Henry, Pennsylvania Evidence, (4th 804 1953). Thus, at 206 ed. an individual’s § a witness’s truthfulness,” “character for no matter how well the individual witness, knows the is never Commonwealth. Commonwealth v. Lo- in this admissible pinson, 284, vacated on other 427 Pa. (1967), 234 A.2d 552 grounds, 647, U.S. 88 S.Ct. 20 L.Ed.2d 1344 Stiefel, (1968); 981; 428 A.2d Packel Poulin, Pennsylvania Evidence 608.1 at 418 §

If a bad reputa is impeached by proof tion for truth veracity, may evidence then be admitted reputation prove good truth and veracity. Wertz v. May, (1853); Pa. 274 McCormick, (3d Evidence ed. § 1984); Poulin, Packel and Pennsylvania Evidence 608.1 at § evidence, 419. Bolstering however, is not admissible unless the character of the attacked, witness has been and even trial court’s discretion. Wertz, then, at the only 274; 21 Pa. Ford, Commonwealth v. 199 Pa.Super. supra, Poulin, Packel and at 419. bar,

At gave Commonwealth witness her person al opinion as to the child/witness’s character for honesty. Pennsylvania clearly prohibits law this testimony. length of time the witness counseled or knew the child is clearly of no consequence to this Furthermore, conclusion. it is also decidedly irrelevant the opinion testimony was offered, according Commonwealth, to rehabilitate the Seese, Commonwealth v. child/witness. 512 Pa. (1986), states that “[although opinion evidence is not to permitted be on the issue of a witness’ credibility, remain, course, there all of the traditional methods for credibility.” Seese, developing attacking a witness’ Pa. at 517 A.2d 920. Because rebuttal or rehabilitative opinion testimony as to a witness’s character telling truth is not a traditional method for developing a witness’s credibility, Seese is not supportive of the Commonwealth’s *5 allow, through We shall not circumven- argument bar. law, the principle Pennsylvania tion of established Fi- inadmissible. clearly introduction the child’s impairing reputation evidence nally, Smith; moreover, the not offered gave opinion, general reputational personal truth-telling ability of the child. Ac- testimony, as to the is merit to contention that cordingly, there Smith’s counsel failing object was ineffective for to the admission this testimony. We further find that counsel had no reasonable allowing its introduction. See basis Commonwealth v. Davis, 77, (1988); 518 Pa. 541 A.2d 315 Commonwealth v. 390, (1988). Thek, 376 546 A.2d 83 We also find that the admission of the testimony prejudiced grant Smith warranted of a new trial ordered by Pennsylvania Supreme the trial court. The Court has stated: question particular

The of whether a witness is testify- ing a truthful manner is one that must answered in be reliance inferences from upon ordinary experi- drawn knowledge ences life and common as to the natural nature, tendencies of human as well as observations upon witness____ of the demeanor and character of the phenomenon prevarica- and situations which lying, occur, tions might expected traditionally be have been regarded ordinary jurors as within the facility reason, assess. For this of a credi- question witness’ regarded as a decision reserved bility routinely been jury. for the exclusively Seese, 439, 443,

Commonwealth v. 512 Pa. 517 A.2d (1986) (citations omitted) added); (emphasis see Com- (1988); monwealth v. 519 Pa. 547 A.2d 355 Gallagher, (1988); Davis, Commonwealth v. 518 Pa. 541 A.2d 315 O’Searo, 466 Pa. Commonwealth v. Dunkle,

Commonwealth v. By testifying telling as to the child’s character for truth, usurped credibility- the Commonwealth witness

determining jury. infringment upon function of the prejudiced sacred domain Smith because the jury’s *6 alleged of the of the linchpin victim was Thek, Commonwealth v. See case. Commonwealth’s 399, 546 A.2d at 88. Pa.Super. at exception credibility- We find it unwise to create an function of the in a case in an determining jury which do alleged dispute child/victim testifies. We that an should alleged oppor- child/victim sexual abuse have stand and tell his or her tunity story. to take witness witnesses, considerations for child re- competency designed articulated in are to allow peatedly Pennsylvania, if child has the testify merely capacity a child witness to giving litigation to have rise to the with observed event can degree accuracy, a substantial remember event giving litigation, ability rise to the has the to understand answers, and has a conscious- questions and communicate Commonwealth ness of the the truth. duty speak Anderson, 552 A.2d 1064 Further- more, witnesses, witnesses, are presumed like all Anderson, competent at testify. tak- testimony, jury, doubtlessly A.2d 1064. From this witness, into consideration the of the can make a ing youth and the veracity determination as to the of the of the find on the other improper, witness. We hand, witness, a situation in an expert any matter, and under the for that takes the witness stand guise proceeds as to the credi- testify “rehabilitation” of the To such is to bility child/witness. allow permit usurpation credibility-finding the unlawful function of the This strikes at the heart of our jury. system justice. if any

We would have reached our conclusion bar or her presumed give person- Commonwealth witness his note, witness; al as to the of another we however, is augmented our conclusion because Ms. witness, called An has Wiley expert. expert as who a jury possessing specialized been introduced to the skill knowledge testify, in the field in which he is about to more over a than a witness. jury lay has influence certainly O’Searo, Pa. Commonwealth v. See Seese, 512 Pa. see also Commonwealth (1986). Here, Ms. was introduced Wiley in dealing as “an family therapy abused, children.” She testified that sexually with abused degree counseling specialty has Master’s with a she clients and family therapy, currently forty and she “between one-third and one-half those clients are sexual- Certainly, abused.” the members of the who have ly sexually had no contact or association with abused children prone knowledge experi- will more to defer to the be ence of an such as Ms. than to a witness Wiley such children. experience dealing without with See *7 229, 30; O’Searo, 466 Pa. at 352 A.2d Commonwealth v. (1989). 439, 385 561 A.2d 756 Accord- Hoyman, Pa.Super. to opinion testimony we find that Ms. as the ingly, Wiley’s “in truth ability prejudicial child’s to character” tell the was Smith, failing that counsel for to to and was ineffective object to its introduction.1

Order affirmed. TAMILIA, dissenting: Judge, I dissent from the affirmance of respectfully majority’s a new trial. awarding appellee Order the trial court witness, Wiley, 1. We further note that the Commonwealth’s Ms. explicitly compared general sexually behavioral characteristics of specific displayed by abused children to the behavioral characteristics following alleged Additionally, the child at bar incidents. Ms. Wiley years separate that a child seven is able testified old truth reality. upon credibility- from All of this encroaches finding jury clearly prohibited by and function recent Pennsylvania Supreme Superior Court caselaw. See Common- 291, (1988); Gallagher, wealth v. Pa. A.2d 519 547 355 Commonwealth 77, Davis, (1988); Dunkle, 518 Pa. 541 A.2d 315 Commonwealth v. 317, Emge, 385 561 A.2d 5 Commonwealth v. 381 139, (1988). subsequent These cases were all filed trial. Because Smith’s law, failing predict not be new counsel shall deemed ineffective for White, 348, (1987), Commonwealth v. Pa. A.2d we shall failing object not find counsel ineffective to this additional testimony. dated appeals an Order November The Commonwealth Smith, Harold W. granted appellee-defendant 1988 which Jr., Appellant by was convicted a new trial. indecent 18 Pa.C.S. exposure, 1987 of November § minors, for incidents 18 Pa.C.S. corruption § of 1984 between in October and November which occurred trial, At step-daughter. old year him and his then seven therapist of a presented testimony family Commonwealth during period the nine month counseled the victim who counselor, Wiley, incidents. The Ms. alleged after Counseling Services. County Northumberland employed had on direct examination whether she Wiley Ms. was asked to in character tell the ability “an as to opinion [the child’s] 11/18/87, 78).1 offered an (T.T. p. She then truth” truth, any telling to the child’s character without Supplemen- the defense counsel. being lodged by objection after withdrawal by appellant tal motions filed post-verdict an issue the ineffec- original trial counsel raised as of his because of her representation of trial counsel’s tiveness as to the object expert’s opinion failure to The trial court then issued victim. motion for basing grant its question, the Order of ineffectiveness allegation trial on the above new Seese, 512 Pa. and the cases of Commonwealth v. counsel Davis, and (1986), 439, 517 A.2d 920 the Common- Subsequently, Pa. appeal. filed this timely wealth trial granting *8 the court erred in a new Appellant argues the infringe upon did not testimony the witness’ because credibility determine the of wit- obligation fact finder’s nesses, regarding the testimony and the introduction was, event, in harm- any for truthfulness victim’s character less. Thek, v. 390, 546 A.2d Pa.Super.

In 376 counsel (1988), a claim was made that defense was 83 page suggests question brief 5 the was 1. The Commonwealth’s at to and ability actually opinion if she had "an as to [the child’s] words is not critical tell the truth.” The difference in character my position.

635 of the Commonwealth’s introducing report the ineffective the the Commonwealth’s expert placing before of continu- that the minor victim’s account expert’s opinion Thek, we reviewed the sexual was credible. ing abuse must meet in order to establish a appellant an requirements ineffectiveness, following: stating claim act or omission coun- [AJppellant must establish that: ineffective; counsel’s act or omission arguably sel was designed had a to effectu- could not have reasonable basis interests; appellant prejudiced by was appellant’s ate ineffec- arguably in that but for the the act omission that probability act or omission there is a reasonable tive different. Commonwealth v. the result would have been 483, 372, 376, A.2d 485 Petras, [368 153, (1987) Pierce, 515 Pa. ]; see also Commonwealth v. 159-60, A.2d 975-76 (footnote

Thek, 546 A.2d at 87 supra, omitted). case expert We found that the involved that an permissible testimony by had exceeded the bounds of stating by specifically a child sex abuse case credible, such victim was because “invaded province jury by presuming pass directly upon Id., Pa.Superior of the witness.” Ct. at 546 A.2d at 83.2 we concluded Thek Accordingly, objective- counsel had been ineffective because there was no permitting basis for the admission of ly reasonable jurisdictions throughout holding that of 2. This is consistent with most Alaska, (Alaska App.1989) country. Thompson See v. 769 P.2d 997 (an expert may give opinion a direct on the truthfulness of not child); (Colo.1989) (witness may People Gaffney, v. 769 P.2d 1081 believable); State, opinion very Tingle not offer an that a child was (Fla. 1988) (in credibility rejecting expert on 536 So.2d 202 directly the court writes was error for the state’s witnesses to “[i]t J.C.E., victim”); testify v. rule, P.2d 309 to the truthfulness State (Mont.1988) (the general expert testimony court writes that as a evaluating witness is Where a child of a inadmissible. testifies, Geyman, witness is a victim and under State v. 224 Mont. (Mont. 1986), made); exception 729 P.2d 475 is State v. (Utah 1989) (an Eldredge, may opinion 773 P.2d 29 offer an Madison, child); Wash.App. of a State truthfulness (1989) (an expert may 770 P.2d 662 not offer an that a child truthful; however, expert testimony permissible to rehabilitate ). *9 opinion of the testimony expert, and the testimony was prejudicial appellant because the child-victim’s credibility was essential to the Commonwealth’s case. Whether not the claim of of ineffectiveness counsel will stand depend- is ent in this case on whether the testimony of the expert was admissible. purports Seese,

Thek to follow supra, which held that an expert may not be permitted testify as to the credibility children, class, as a subject who have been to sexual abuse, as this province encroaches on the jury. Seese also expert opinion said proper only where formation of an on a subject requires knowledge, information or skill beyond is possessed by what the ordi- nary juror. Id. Pa. at 517 A.2d at 921. Where the question is one of particular whether a witness is testifying manner, in a truthful it must be answered reliance upon inferences drawn from the life experiences and knowledge jurors, of the as well as the observation of the character and demeanor of the goes witness. Seese on to say, “[although opinion evidence is not to permitted be on the remains, issue of a witness’ credibility, course, there all of the traditional methods developing a attacking Id., witness’ credibility.” 512 Pa. at 517 A.2d at 922. The law regarding testimony by an expert relating to the capacity a child to tell the truth in an abuse case is clearly stated and pattern follows distinct in Pennsylva- nia and a majority jurisdictions throughout the na- Expert tion. sexual abuse cases frequently relates to bolstering of child sexual abuse by victims describing children, behavior of sexually abused similar to that case, exhibited the victim in the or by confirming, through studies, recitation of reports and general reliability of victim reports sexual abuse. is,

The general Seese, rule stated supra, that an expert witness may present testimony as substantive evidence which establishes sexual abuse based on the be- pattern havioral the child. Commonwealth v. Bald- win, 348 Pa.Super. (1985), this Court equated the “sexual abuse syndrome” with the “battered aas syndrome” “battered wife and the syndrome” *10 evi- testimony as substantive introducing expert for basis of the as to occurrence having probative value dence reasoning accepted by majori- The better sexual abuse. child abuse is that jurisdictions of the nation’s ty sexual abuse has been documented whereas syndrome not, for based on test syndrome accommodation v. testimony Frye announced United expert of admission States, (D.C.Cir.1923). F. 1013 293 Accommodation article, Child Sexual Abuse

In an “The (1983),Dr. Roland Neglect & 177 7 Child Abuse Syndrome”, ob- commonly the five characteristics described Summit in sexually children: served abused 1) Secrecy;

2) Helplessness; accommodation;

3) and Entrapment disclosure; and 4) unconvincing and conflicted Delayed, 5) Retraction a diagnose and is not test syndrome does not Bowker, Cal.App.3d 203 People abuse. See v.

sexual Cal.App.3d 187 People Gray, 886 Cal.Rptr. the battered child Cal.Rptr. With from of to cause type injury one reasons syndrome, to the cause as probative It has value establish injury. opposed as to arising neglect physical assault out not, no more often than visible accident. With sexual abuse exists, and in the sexual abuse accommo- injury evidence of syndrome, one reasons from behavioral characteris- dation abused children sexually tics some but all observed it has of sexual abuse. Thus probative existence not be used as syndrome may held that this properly been abuse.3 probative evidence and sexual substantive testimony, distinguish class We between the above 3. must characteristics, on medical that relies behavioral part proof sexually a abused and relies offers that supported by physical a examination that confirms but is (an might colposcope instru- penetration, which include the use of binoculars, low-power magnification, provides ment which akin genital injury). People detecting signs Mendi- subtle See aid Baldwin, logical the court held there is relevance as supra, matter, allowing testimony by a substantive direct an ex- as to sexual on the sexual pert syn- abuse based abuse Pearsall, drome. In Commonwealth v. 368 (1987), while this Court found no conflict Baldwin, it went on to that say between Seese Seese admission of permits testimony by supports inferentially of a witness because it is consistent class, with behavior victims sexual abuse as a while it if it denying presumes pass directly upon of a witness. particular Pearsall A.2d at 109 n. 1. This statement is in error to the extent supports psychological that it use of simply observations of children complaining establish of sexual *11 being abuse and therefore that the child examined is telling Davis, the truth. See Seese and and Kozak supra, v. 554, Struth, (1987). 515 Pa. 531 A.2d goes beyond 420 This permissible scope expert the and the testimony invades above, stated province jury. As the child sexual syndrome diagnose accommodation does not sexual abuse. best, At in some jurisdictions, expert testimony is admissi- in to the symptoms ble rebuttal show that child’s and abuse, are the behavior consistent with sexual that child probably experienced age-inappropriate sexual contact. Many jurisdictions permit in to expert testimony rebuttal why reporting show children sexual abuse.4 delay bles, 1277, (1988). Cal.App.3d Cal.Rptr. 199 245 553 The latter is admissible whereas the former is not. 4. The great majority approve expert testimony. of courts such rebuttal See, Davis, e.g., (court (Minn.Ct.app.1988) State v. 422 N.W.2d 296 approves expert testimony running away to inform from adolescents); sexually Bailey, home is common in abused State v. 89 212, 651, (1988) N.C.App. (expert why 365 S.E.2d 655 could state child abuser); Bowker, cooperate People would continue to with v. 203 385, 886, (1988) (child Cal.App.3d Cal.Rptr. 249 891 sexual abuse syndrome testimony explain delay); accommodation admitted to Peo victim; (Colo. 1987) (adult ple Hampton, rape rape v. 746 P.2d 947 State, syndrome delay); explain trauma admitted to Wheat v. 527 A.2d (Del. Matlock, 171, 274, 1987); People Mich.App. 269 v. 153 N.W.2d 395 506, (1986); (Minn.1987); Sandberg, 277 State v. 406 N.W.2d 511 570, 326, State, (1984); People Smith v. 100 Nev. 688 P.2d 326-27 v. R., (1984); Benjamine 103 A.D.2d 481 N.Y.S.2d 831-32 State Hicks, Petrich, v. 148 Vt. 535 A.2d State v. in gone cases, have diverse appears In this Court to two expert’s determining admissibility of the directions credibility child’s to bolster the tend testimony would relating matters understand or articulate ability to his as his despite fantasy, from and to differentiate to the abuse Emge, 139, 553 In age. J., this panel Court (1988) dissenting), (Brosky, bolstering as the inadmissible such held the thereby invading and alleged victim Com- holding followed was jury. province Gibbons, monwealth 556 A.2d Pearsall, supra, held an wit- this Court capacity mental and verbal testify as ness could of incest and child not fantasize the extent verbalize and done on the testing sexual based on observations abuse evolving Superior Court child. line cases Since views, pro- return to the we need to presents conflicting issues Supreme Court these nouncements guidance.5 Seese, it holding appears

From the admissible, rehabilitative rebuttal testi- Dr. as Wiley had cross-examined mony child been after brought question. expert’s into Prior to testi- cross-exam- and had been mony, victim testified cross-examination, ined while by appellant’s attorney. harsh, the time of did the child’s test *12 a occurrence, forming her of the event basis recollection her not the incidents charges, reporting reasons State, 732 P.2d 683 P.2d 179-80 Scadden v. Wash.2d (Wyo.1987). State, (Tex.Ct.App.1987) Dunnington But 740 S.W.2d 896 see therefore, expert (delay beyond lay jurors, reporting ken of needed). testimony not See, Expert testimony explain why recant. is admissible children e.g., Lindsey, 720 P.2d State v. 149 Ariz. case, disposition of this since the 5. While those cases do not effect the basic rules of issue is a narrower one which turns on here much personal knowledge, it of a witness from evidence as appears rehabilitation by Supreme law our this area of the that total review of against rapidly developing law Court throughout is needed when viewed the United States. promptly and her knowledge of terms used and she how acquired this. Wiley’s Dr. admission of testimony, trial, formed the basis for grant specific a new was her experience with and actual knowledge acquired by reason 20 or more period interviews with child over a months, of nine as to the child’s character for telling knowledge truth. This acquired by was discussions with the child and verifying veracity and accuracy statements from her parents, grandparents and others. Wiley

Dr. testified in response prosecutor’s ques- tion as follows:

Q. And, you have known Jill now for— A. years. Two

Q. And, years. Two do you have an as to her ability to in character tell the truth? Yes,

A. she is—she has the character which can tell the truth in the sense that she would be talking— if whether she talking about school or she would be talking just about events I family, when would check those then with her mother or with her facts I grandmother would then learn the same facts from parent. added). T.T. at (emphasis Had the question posed been given and the answer prior been to cross-examination of the counsel, child by defense it would improper have been character testimony when character was not in issue. Af- counsel, ter by cross-examination defense the child’s charac- ter telling for truth inwas issue.6 majority invading 6. The holds this was not admissible as province jury. ignores the sacred the entire thrust of the evolving providing law playing toward a more even field for children testify evidentiary of sexual abuse who must in court. The cases and present rules cited the dissent are irrelevant consideration. greater capacity An adult on the witness stand a far to withstand may cross-examination than a child. What be a child’s limited knowl- edge terminology, inability specific, capacity to be time or event to.respond appear in a court environment can to a to be flaws in credibility. increasing- character or ly The law and the courts must and disability are sensitive to this inherent of child witnesses. Here, question was directed toward the child’s general (reputation) telling character the truth and is therefore *13 cases, obtaining from than evidence In children other admissible. counselors, members, family very to in be difficult it can teachers or on their activities reputation evidence because of limitations obtain peers legal and community. no in the sense A of three has the community. common acquire reputation in the A ability little to establishing reputation. apply or approach in character must sense relatives, parents, only produced by be adults such This can teachers and counselors observe her. opportunity and to be with the child who had of the for the domain The dissent's concern sacred equally important is a fair trial consideration is commendable but an position simply The dissent's the child victim of sexual assaults. for weighs Common defendant: Since the balance in favor of the the reputa present shov/ing the character or may never evidence wealth tion chief, Story, 476 Pa. case in the victim its (1970), if may rebuttal it present it such evidence in Castellana, by the defendant. Commonwealth has been attacked 277 Pa. rebuttal include: ... proper examples of is "Clear what 121 A. 50 party rehabilitating witness of the evidence the produced evidence in proof after the defendant has with the burden Pennsylvania impeaching of those witnesses[.] his case Trial 8.1, Cottom, guide, citing Pa. Risbon v. § Rebuttal 160-62, (1956). given system adversary 104-5 Under our 127 A.2d trials, opportunity to opponent be an meet the attack must general rehabilitating by sustaining witness. One evidence or principle operative law the Federal Rules of under both case and credibility, upon no Evidence is that in the absence of attack sustaining is when there evidence is allowed. A second truism that facts, may bring impeaching proponent has been evidence of impeach alleged contradictory ing asserting evidence the untruth of always generally allowable. Such a relevant and facts. denial Evidence, added). (Emphasis § Third Edition McCormick Supporting the Witness. uni- Pennsylvania law and hornbooks and treaties follow case 608(a), formly Opinion reputation and the Federal Rules of Evidence character, which evidence of states: by may supported evidence in the The form of the evidence truthfulness, of a witness be ... (1) subject opinion reputation, to these limitations: but only or un- may to character for truthfulness refer (2) is admissible and evidence of truthful character only has truthfulness been after the character reputation entirely evidence or otherwise. attacked proper conformity with the Wiley’s Dr. above principles. Pennsylvania Legislature paid particular attention proceed- unique handicaps in criminal 5981, of child victims and witnesses legislature ings. Policy, 42 Pa.C.S. § In its Declaration states: promote of this the best interests of children order affording necessity recognition Commonwealth and children who are material witnesses of crimes addi- or victims adults, the and different treatment from that of tional consideration intent, subchapter, provide Assembly General these children with additional declares its this during rights protections their *14 circumstances, Under these Dr. had Wiley actual knowl- edge of the child’s testify character and could in rebuttal and for purposes. rehabilitative This does not violate by rule established one of accepted Seese is tradi- therein, methods tional referred to to be utilized when character or play. come into Dr. Wiley’s testimo- did not ny expert enter the mine field of suspect testimony concerning the child sexual abuse accommodation syndrome above, discussed to match attempts behavior of child abuse victims to other abuse in victims order to their bolster Here, credibility. she testified to her knowledge as child’s truthfulness her character was when called into question. deprive does not its jury opportunity to make the ultimately determination of as such or lay evidence from been always witnesses instance, admissible. this the statements of Dr. Wiley are not admissible because she but as is rather direct person knowledge experience with with the wit- to reliably ness be able to report to character. reasons, For the above I believe the Commonwealth’s position is correct and should I be sustained. would vacate the Order granting trial, trial court a new reinstate verdict and remand the case for sentencing. justice system. with involvement the criminal The General Assem- bly urges revealing identity the news media use restraint in address of children who are victims of or witnesses to crimes. goes provide It on to for children presump- under and a rebuttable support years, tion favor children 14 to 15 services are

required, taping depositions video lieu of direct television, permissible by court at trial closed-circuit protective in addition other measures. majority, recognizing hardships special rather than proceeds, protections children in criminal denies of the law afforded every adult. The this case is twice victimized majority’s approach.