Com. v. Hernandez

15 Citing cases

  1. State v. Huston

    825 N.W.2d 531 (Iowa 2013)   Cited 69 times
    Finding no probative value of a founded abuse report in a criminal action

    The district court gave no curative or limiting instruction to the jury regarding the DHS determination. Other courts have allowed testimony as to administrative findings with a curative or limiting instruction. See, e.g., United States v. W.R. Grace, 455 F.Supp.2d 1203, 1207 (D.Mont.2006)(allowing evidence of EPA environmental risk assessment because the jury is capable of “[d]ifferentiating between the different standards” with the help of a limiting jury instruction); Commonwealth v. Hernandez, 420 Pa.Super. 1, 615 A.2d 1337, 1341 (1992)(affirming conviction for sexual abuse of minor when trial court gave cautionary instruction “that only the jury was the factfinder ... and [that] it ‘must not and may not accept any standard adopted by DHS' ”). We do not believe it would have been proper in this case to allow testimony that the child abuse report was determined to be founded even with a limiting instruction.

  2. Com. v. Minerd

    562 Pa. 46 (Pa. 2000)   Cited 67 times
    Concluding trial court did not err in allowing expert to testify regarding her inconclusive examination results of her physical examination of the child victims

    Id. at 275 (citations omitted). The court analogized to Commonwealth v. Hernandez, 615 A.2d 1337 (Pa.Super. 1992), in which the Superior Court found that a pediatrician could testify "that the physical facts observed and reported by the treating physician were consistent with the allegation of anal sodomy." Id. at 1343.

  3. Com. v. Fink

    2002 Pa. Super. 32 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2002)   Cited 60 times
    Noting that "[t]he tender years exception allows for the admission of a child's out-of-court statement due to the fragile nature of young victims of sexual abuse"

    A physician is permitted to testify that his or her findings following examination are consistent with a victim's allegations of abuse. Commonwealth v. Hernandez, 615 A.2d 1337, 1343 (Pa.Super. 1992). See also, Commonwealth v. Minerd, 753 A.2d 225, 227 (Pa. 2000) (the Commonwealth may, as part of its case-in-chief in a sexual assault prosecution, offer the testimony of an expert that the absence of physical trauma is nevertheless consistent with alleged sexual abuse).

  4. Commonwealth v. Maconeghy

    171 A.3d 707 (Pa. 2017)   Cited 43 times
    Holding that "expert testimony opining that a child has been sexually abused—which is predicated on witness accounts and not physical findings—is inadmissible"

    Further, the panel noted the Superior Court's own previous admonition that "the admissibility of expert testimony in child abuse cases must be evaluated cautiously in order to prevent encroachment upon the jury's function by the unfair enhancement of a child victim's credibility." Maconeghy, 2191 MDA 2014, slip op. at 7, 2015 WL 7078462, at *3 (quoting Commonwealth v. Hernandez, 420 Pa.Super. 1, 8, 615 A.2d 1337, 1340 (1992) ). The panel also discussed the legislative enactment pertaining to expert testimony in various criminal proceedings involving sexual offenses, which now authorizes certain professionals to testify as to "specific types of victim responses and behaviors."

  5. Commonwealth v. Ramos

    2020 Pa. Super. 96 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2020)   Cited 16 times
    Explaining "failure to raise a contemporaneous objection to evidence at trial waives that claim on appeal"

    Even if we found the prosecutor elicited the statement, Ramos would still not be entitled to relief. See Commonwealth v. Hernandez , 420 Pa.Super. 1, 615 A.2d 1337 1341 (1992) (finding social worker explaining to jury that she found child abuse case was "indicated" based, in part, on interview with victim and victim's mother, did not unduly bolster credibility of victim). Judgment of sentence affirmed.

  6. Com. v. Johnson

    456 Pa. Super. 251 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1997)   Cited 8 times

    Commonwealth v. O'Searo, 466 Pa. 224, 229, 352 A.2d 30, 32 (1976). Conversely, expert testimony is not permitted on matters of common knowledge. Commonwealth v. Hernandez, 420 Pa. Super. 1, 13, 615 A.2d 1337, 1343 (1992). Expert testimony may not be used to bolster the credibility of witnesses because witness credibility is solely within the province of the jury.

  7. Com. v. Bourgeon

    439 Pa. Super. 355 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1994)   Cited 6 times
    In Commonwealth v. Bourgeon, 654 A.2d 555 (Pa. Super. 1994), the testimony of an 11 year-old victim that the defendant lured him into a bathroom where he attempted to clip some manner of "pin toy" onto the minor's penis, was sufficient to support a conviction of corruption of minors.

    Jarman, supra; Paquette,supra. See Commonwealth v. Hernandez, 420 Pa. Super. 1, 615 A.2d 1337 (1992) (testimony of victim, corroborated in part by his mother, was sufficient to sustain defendant's conviction for corruption of a minor); Commonwealth v. Bricker, 397 Pa. Super. 457, 580 A.2d 388, appeal denied, 527 Pa. 596, 589 A.2d 687 (1990) (verdict finding defendant guilty of corruption of a minor was supported by sufficient evidence of acts which would corrupt a minor, regardless of finding of not guilty of indecent assault or involuntary deviate sexual intercourse). Judgment of sentence affirmed.

  8. Grego v. Kerestes

    CIVIL NO. 1:CV-13-2675 (M.D. Pa. Jan. 15, 2016)   Cited 2 times

    Second, S.Z.'s statements were admissible under Rule 803(4) unless they were testimonial in nature, citing Commonwealth v. Allhouse, 604 Pa. 61, 985 A.2d 847 (2009), but her statements were not testimonial; they were instead given for the purpose of medical diagnosis and treatment. (Id., ECF p. 8). Third, Dr. Taroli's testimony was not given to sustain S.Z.'s credibility but to show how a doctor conducts a medical examination, citing Commonwealth v. Hernandez, 420 Pa. Super. Ct. 1, 615 A.2d 1337 (1992). (Id.).

  9. Beatty v. Kauffman

    1:19-cv-184 (W.D. Pa. Oct. 12, 2021)

    In arguing to the contrary, [Beatty] refers to statements that must be considered in the context in which they were given; either to establish the witness's role in disclosure and/or investigation, the victim's competency, or to permit diagnosis. See e.g., Commonwealth v. Hernandez, 615 A.2d 1337, 1341 (concluding that the trial court's instructions correctly informed the jury that the witness, in performing her job, made certain evaluations and reached conclusions distinct from the jury's function as fact-finder). Commonwealth v. Loner, 609 A.2d 1376, 1377 (explaining that the Commonwealth may present evidence of child victim's prior consistent statement to corroborate the victim's testimony).

  10. Commonwealth v. Walters

    323 A.3d 151 (Pa. 2024)

    He submits that this Court has consistently prohibited such testimony on the basis that it "encroaches upon the province of the jury and improperly and unfairly enhances the credibility of the witness." Appellant’s Brief at 53 (citing Commonwealth v. Seese, 512 Pa. 439, 517 A.2d 920 (1986); Commonwealth v. Balodis, 560 Pa. 567, 747 A.2d 341 (2000); and Commonwealth v. Hernandez, 420 Pa.Super. 1, 615 A.2d 1337 (1992)). With respect to the Superior Court’s determination that, because Dr. Ross admitted he found no objective evidence to substantiate Bell’s claim that Lorenzen was strangled, his testimony did not impermissibly bolster Bell’s credibility, Appellant suggests that the court overlooked the fact that Dr. Ross admitted that he relied on Bell’s statements for his opinion that Lorenzen was, in fact, strangled.