Commonwealth v. Walter

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided June 27, 2012

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · decided 2012-06-27

Cited by 2 later decisions — most recently December 2025

2 state decisions

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“1. Did the Superior Court err in holding that, before a trial court may admit a child’s statements pursuant to the Tender Years [Hearsay] Act, the court must first conclude that the child is competent to testify? 2. Did the Superior Court err in determining that the trial court abused its discretion by admitting the child victim’s out-of-court statements under the Tender Years [Hearsay] Act, where the trial court found sufficient indicia of reliability such that the child was likely to have been telling the truth when the statements were made?”

quoted by 1 later decision, including Commonwealth v. Walter

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 2012-06-27

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1 *1287 ORDER

PER CURIAM.

¶2AND NOW, this 27th day of June, 2012, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is GRANTED on the following issues, as stated by Petitioner:

(1) Did the Superior Court err in holding that, before a trial court may admit a child’s statements pursuant to the Tender Years Act, the court must first conclude that the child is competent to testify?

(2) Did the Superior Court err in determining that the trial court abused its discretion by admitting the child victim’s out-of-court statements under the Tender Years Act, where the trial court found sufficient indicia of reliability such that the child was likely to have been telling the truth when the statements were made?