PA Supreme Court: Defendant Failed to Present Sufficient Evidence to Require Voir Dire Question on Whether Jurors Will Always Believe Alleged Child Abuse Victims
Philadelphia Criminal Defense Lawyer Zak T. Goldstein, Esquire
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has decided the case of Commonwealth v. Smith, affirming a trial court's broad discretion in refusing a specific jury selection question about a juror’s potential for bias in favor of the truthfulness of alleged child sexual assault victims. The Court concluded that based on the record presented to the trial judge, there was no abuse of discretion in denying the proposed inquiry because the defendant failed to show that jurors tend to believe child abuse complainants more than other potential witnesses. Had the defense presented more evidence to the trial court, however, the question may well have been required.
The Issue in Smith
The defendant, who had been convicted of child sexual assault charges, challenged the trial court's refusal to ask prospective jurors the following specific question during voir dire (jury selection):
Are you more likely to believe the testimony of a child alleging sexual abuse because you do not believe a child could lie about sexual abuse?
The defendant argued that in a case where the uncorroborated testimony of the child complainants was central to the Commonwealth’s case, his right to an impartial jury required a specific inquiry into a potential "fixed bias" that children do not lie about sexual abuse.
The Court's Ruling: Insufficient Evidence to Support the Question
The Supreme Court applied an abuse of discretion standard of review to the trial court’s ruling and rejected the defendant’s challenge as follows:
No Foundation at Trial: The Court noted that the defendant’s argument for the existence of this fixed bias was a "bald assumption" before the trial court as he "offered no support for the proposition that the inquiry addressed a fixed bias or prejudice.” Because the Court must review the trial court's decision based on the information it had at the time, the defense's later, more detailed arguments on appeal were not helpful in terms of retroactively showing that the trial court erred.
Adequate General Inquiry: The trial court had conducted extensive general and individual voir dire. This included informing the panel of the nature of the charges and asking if anything would prevent them from being
fair and impartial, as well as inquiring if they or anyone close to them had been victims of sexual assault or child abuse. The trial court also excused multiple jurors for cause who claimed an inability to be fair.
Fixed Bias vs. Credibility: The Court clarified that inquiries designed to uncover a fixed bias, such as one related to a certain category of witnesses, are not the same as instructions on general witness credibility. A fixed bias precludes an impartial determination of credibility. However, based on the lack of a foundation supporting the existence of this particular bias due to the defendant’s failure to develop the record at the trial level, the trial court did not abuse its discretion.
The Court's decision essentially provides a roadmap for future cases: a trial court is only free to refuse this line of inquiry if the party requesting it fails to present a developed, evidence-based argument for the existence of a fixed bias. Here, the defendant presented strong evidence of the bias to the Supreme Court such that the Court may well have reversed had the evidence been presented to the trial court, but because the trial court could only make a ruling based on the evidence presented at the time, the Supreme Court rejected the defendant’s challenge.
Unlawful Contact Remand: Reconsideration in Light of Strunk
The Court also addressed the defendant’s challenge to his convictions for unlawful contact with a minor (18 Pa.C.S. § 6318).
Commonwealth v. Strunk: Subsequent to the Superior Court's decision affirming in this case, the Supreme Court narrowed the scope of the unlawful contact statute in Commonwealth v. Strunk.
Strunk held that Section 6318 is an "anti-grooming statute" intended to criminalize and punish “communication designed to induce or otherwise further the sexual exploitation of children.”
The Outcome: Given the significant clarification in the law, specifically, the refinement of the sufficiency of the evidence required for convictions under Section 6318—the Supreme Court vacated the Superior Court's judgment on this issue and remanded the case for reconsideration in light of Strunk. The Superior Court will now have to apply the statute’s narrower focus on "communicative behavior” in this case on remand.
Ultimately, although the result is bad for this particular defendant, the case is good for defendants in general in that it shows that should a defendant make an adequate record, they might be entitled to ask potential jurors about whether they will always believe alleged child abuse victims. Similarly, the Court continues to hold that the unlawful contact statute is not nearly as broad as prosecutors typically claim.
Facing criminal charges? We can help.
Goldstein Mehta LLC Criminal Defense
If you are facing criminal charges or under investigation by the police, we can help. We have successfully defended thousands of clients against criminal charges in courts throughout Pennsylvania and New Jersey. We have successfully obtained full acquittals and dismissals in cases involving charges such as Conspiracy, Aggravated Assault, Rape, Violations of the Uniform Firearms Act, and First-Degree Murder. We have also won criminal appeals and PCRAs in state and federal court, including the successful direct appeal of a first-degree murder conviction and the exoneration of a client who spent 33 years in prison for a murder he did not commit. Our award-winning Philadelphia criminal defense lawyers offer a free criminal defense strategy session to any potential client. Call 267-225-2545 to speak with an experienced and understanding defense attorney today.
