Summary
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court held that a hearing under 42 Pa.C.S. § 5985 to determine whether a child witness may testify by a contemporaneous alternative method is not a critical stage of a criminal proceeding. The defendant therefore had no constitutional confrontation or due process right to obtain access to the child’s psychological records, have the child examined by a defense expert, or present expert rebuttal testimony. The court explained that the hearing is narrowly focused on whether testifying in the defendant’s presence would cause serious emotional distress that substantially impairs the child’s ability to communicate.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether a hearing under 42 Pa.C.S. § 5985 to determine whether a child witness may testify by contemporaneous alternative method is a critical stage of the criminal proceeding.
- Whether the Confrontation Clauses of the Sixth Amendment and Article I, § 9 of the Pennsylvania Constitution require access to the child's psychological information or permit defense expert rebuttal testimony at a § 5985 hearing.
- Whether due process requires the Commonwealth to provide access to the child's mental-health information and permits the defendant to present an expert to rebut the Commonwealth's evidence at a § 5985 hearing.
- How § 5985 limits the scope of the evidentiary inquiry into a child's emotional distress and psychological condition.
Holdings
- A hearing under 42 Pa.C.S. § 5985 is not a critical stage of the criminal proceeding because the defendant's substantive confrontation right is not preserved or lost at that hearing.
- The Confrontation Clauses do not require access to information concerning the child's medical or psychological history and do not give the defendant a right to present defense expert testimony at a § 5985 hearing.
- Due process does not require access to all information concerning the child's diagnosis, treatment, and prognosis or permit a defense expert to rebut the Commonwealth's testimony at a § 5985 hearing.
- The Commonwealth does not place the child's overall mental health or psychological condition at issue merely by requesting a § 5985 hearing; those matters are relevant only to the extent the Commonwealth relies on them to establish that the child's ability to communicate would be impaired by the defendant's presence.
Key quotations
“Therefore, we hold that because the Section 5985 hearing is not a critical stage of the criminal proceeding, Appellant’s confrontation clause rights are not violated by precluding him from obtaining access to information about the minor victim’s medical and psychological history, nor are they violated by precluding the presentation of defense expert testimony.” (687)
“A Section 5985 hearing is not intended to become a mini-trial on the general mental health status of the child, nor a fishing expedition into the child’s mental health history.” (691)
“We further hold that a defendant does not have a right to present informed expert testimony to rebut the Commonwealth’s evidence in support of its motion pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S. § 5985 to allow a child witness to testify in a room separate from courtroom proceedings.” (691)
Factual background
The Commonwealth alleged that Williams had raped and otherwise abused an eight-year-old child, K.H. It sought to have K.H. testify outside Williams's physical presence under 42 Pa.C.S. § 5985, asserting that she was too afraid to testify in his presence and would suffer serious emotional distress that would impair her ability to communicate. The Commonwealth presented testimony from K.H.'s treating psychologist, who opined that K.H. would be unable to testify in Williams's presence. The trial court nevertheless ordered disclosures concerning K.H.'s diagnosis, treatment, and prognosis so that a defense expert could evaluate the Commonwealth expert's testimony and potentially offer rebuttal testimony.
Procedural history
The Commonwealth charged Williams with multiple offenses arising from alleged sexual conduct toward an eight-year-old child and moved to permit the child to testify at the preliminary hearing and in court by contemporaneous alternative method under 42 Pa.C.S. § 5985. The trial court heard testimony from the child's treating psychologist, allowed the defense additional access to psychological information, and ruled that Williams had a right to present rebuttal expert testimony. The Superior Court reversed, concluding that § 5985 did not grant a right to have the child examined by a defense expert or to present rebuttal expert testimony. The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania granted allowance of appeal and affirmed the Superior Court.