Case ID: a3d_55/html/1048-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

In re E.A. R.A., Respondent v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Public Welfare and Wyoming County Human Services, Intervenor, Petitioners.
    Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
    Oct. 15, 2012.
   ORDER

PER CURIAM.

AND NOW, this 15th day of October, 2012, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is hereby GRANTED. The issues, as stated by petitioners, are:

1. Whether [the] Commonwealth Court erred by determining that the videotape statement of a subject child is not admissible because the Administrative Law Judge heard testimony describing the statements before viewing the videotape?

2. Whether [the] Commonwealth Court erred by requiring that the videotape statement of a young victim of sexual abuse be corroborated by other evidence?