Com. v. Washington (1998)

Commonwealth v. Washington, 554 Pa. 559 , 722 A.2d 643, 646 (1998).

We conclude that on this record, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to question the jurors on the potential for any bias in favor of child victims in sexual assault cases. individuals are “‘incapable of perceiving accurately;’” unable to “frame and express intelligent answers;” incapable of observing and remembering what they observe; and lack sufficient understanding or “consciousness of the duty to speak the truth.” Commonwealth v. Walter, 93 A.3d 442…

We conclude that on this record, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to question the jurors on the potential for any bias in favor of child victims in sexual assault cases. individuals are “‘incapable of perceiving accurately;’” unable to “frame and express intelligent answers;” incapable of observing and remembering what they observe; and lack sufficient understanding or “consciousness of the duty to speak the truth.” Commonwealth v. Walter, 93 A.3d 442…

Peterkin, 722 A.2d at 643, n.8.

See Pa.R.E. 601(b); Commonwealth v. Washington, 554 Pa. 559 , 722 A.2d 643, 646 (1998) (stating that "[a] child's competency to testify is a threshold legal issue that the trial court must decide, and an appellate court will not disturb its determination absent an abuse of discretion.").

Commonwealth v. Washington, 554 Pa. 559, 563-65 , 722 A.2d 643, 646 (1998).

Commonwealth v. Washington, 554 Pa. 559, 563 , 722 A.2d 643, 646 (1998).

Peterkin, 722 A.2d at 643-44; Commonwealth v. Albrecht, 554 Pa. 31 , 720 A.2d 693, 700 (1998).

State v. Wood, 1993 WL 313716 (1993); State v. Cobb, 81 Ohio App.3d 179 , 610 N.E.2d 1009 (1991); State v. Bunch, 62 Ohio App.3d 801 , 577 N.E.2d 681 (1989). [3] See Majority Opinion, 554 Pa. at 565, n. 4 , 722 A.2d at 646, n. 4 .

Credibility involves an assessment of whether or not what the witness says is true; this is a question for the fact finder.” Id. (quoting Commonwealth v. Washington, 722 A.2d 643, 646 (Pa. 1998)).

Although our Supreme Court has adopted a per se rule requiring the trial court to conduct competency inquiries outside the hearing of the jury, see Commonwealth v. Washington, 722 A.2d 643, 647 (Pa. 1998), we agree with the trial court that, in this case, Appellant waived this issue since it was not raised and preserved at trial.6 See Pa.R.A.P. 302(a).

The Court further clarified the law regarding competency hearings in Commonwealth v. Washington, 722 A.2d 643, 647 (Pa. 1998), a case where counsel requested a competency hearing for two complainant witnesses aged 8 and 9, respectively, by creating a “per se rule requiring the trial court to conduct a competency hearing in the absence of the jury.” However, no case holds that a competency hearing is required to be held where, as here, one is not requested by a party challeng…

As the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has recognized: "The invariable result of a jury's presence during competency proceedings is that the truth determining process exclusively reserved for the jury is influenced by the inquiry into competency." Commonwealth v. Washington, 722 A.2d 643, 646 (Pa. 1998).

Our standard of review recognizes that “a child’s competency to testify is a threshold legal issue that -5- J-S60011-19 a trial court must decide, and an appellate court will not disturb its determination absent an abuse of discretion.” Commonwealth v. Meredith, ___ A.3d ___, ___, 2019 PA Super 308, *2 (Pa. Super. filed October 15, 2019) (emphasis in original) (citing Commonwealth v. Washington, 722 A.2d 643, 646 (Pa. 1998) (citation omitted)).

We are guided by the following principles: Our standard of review recognizes that “[a] child's competency to testify is a threshold legal issue that a trial court must decide, and an appellate court will not disturb its determination absent an abuse of discretion.” Commonwealth v. Washington, 554 Pa. 559 , 722 A.2d 643, 646 (1998) (citation omitted) (emphasis added).

We are guided by the following principles: Our standard of review recognizes that “[a] child's competency to testify is a threshold legal issue that a trial court must decide, and an appellate court will not disturb its determination absent an abuse of discretion.” Commonwealth v. Washington, 554 Pa. 559 , 722 A.2d 643, 646 (1998) (citation omitted) (emphasis added).

Moreover, due to “concern that a trial judge’s ruling of competence would be interpreted by the jury as a judicial endorsement of the witness’s credibility[,]” the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has “set forth a per se rule requiring that the jury not be present during a competency hearing for a child witness.” Id. at 290 (citing Commonwealth v. Washington, 722 A.2d 643, 646, 647 (Pa. 1998)).

“A child’s competency to testify is a threshold legal issue that the trial court must decide, and an appellate court will not disturb its determination absent an abuse of discretion.” Commonwealth v. Washington, 722 A.2d 643, 646 (Pa. 1998). - 21 - J-S14010-19 Here, K.A.P. was 14 years of age at the time he testified at trial.

Commonwealth v. Washington, 722 A.2d 643, 646 (Pa. 1998).

Commonwealth v. Washington, 722 A.2d 643, 647 (Pa. 1998).

Commonwealth v. Washington. 722 A.2d 643, 646 (Pa. 1998) (citing Rosche v. McCoy, 156 A.2d 307, 310 (Pa. 1959)).

Commonwealth v. Washington, 554 Pa. 559 , 722 A.2d 643, 646 (1998).

Commonwealth v. Washington, 554 Pa. 559 , 722 A.2d 643, 646 (1998) (citing Rosche v. McCoy, 397 Pa. 615 , 156 A.2d 307, 310 (1959)).

The Commonwealth challenges the decision of the trial court finding that the minor victims were incompetent to testify because of “taint.” Our standard of review recognizes that “[a] child’s competency to testify is a threshold legal issue that a trial court must decide, and an appellate *707 court will not disturb its determination absent an abuse of discretion.” Commonwealth v. Washington, 554 Pa. 559 , 722 A.2d 643, 646 (1998) (citation omitted) (emphasis added).

Appellant further relies upon Commonwealth v. Washington, 554 Pa. 559 , 722 A.2d 643, 647 (1998), where this Court established a per se rule requiring that child witness competency hearings be conducted outside the presence of the jury.

“A child’s competency to testify is a threshold legal issue that the trial court must decide, and an appellate court will not disturb its determination absent an abuse of discretion.” Commonwealth v. Washington, 554 Pa. 559 , 722 A.2d 643, 646 (1998).

See Washington, 722 A.2d at 646 n. 4 and n. 5 (citing holdings from various jurisdictions on this issue).

See Commonwealth v. Washington, 554 Pa. 559, 566 , 722 A.2d 643, 647 (1998) (trial judge); Commonwealth v. Grant, 479 Pa. 74, 81 , 387 A.2d 841, 844 (1978) (former district attorney). 27 The Commonwealth answers that the cases that Appellant relies on are readily distinguishable from the present matter, as Washington involved a trial judge who offered his personal opinion to the jury that the complainant was a truthful witness and that the version of events to which the defe…

See, generally, Commonwealth v. Washington, 554 Pa. 559 , 722 A.2d 643, 646 (1998) (noting that some jurisdictions require such instructions if competency examinations are held within the presence of the jury).

Although courts in other jurisdictions have held that it is reversible error to conduct a competency hearing in the presence of the jury; see, e.g., Commonwealth v. Washington, 554 Pa. 559, 566 , 722 A.2d 643 (1998); that issue has not yet been addressed in Connecticut.

See Commonwealth v. Peterkin, 722 A.2d at 643 (holding that the “PCRA places time limitations on such claims of error, and in doing so, strikes a reasonable balance between society’s need for finality in criminal cases and the convicted person’s need to demonstrate that there has been an error in the proceedings that resulted in his conviction”).

See Commonwealth v. Washington, 722 A.2d 643 (Pa. 1998) (per se rule against conducting competency colloquy of a child in front of the jury).