Case Name: COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Petitioner v. John RUGGIANO, Respondent
Court: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvania
Decision Date: 2011-08-01
Citations: 611 Pa. 368
Docket Number: No. 217 MAL 2011
Parties: COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Petitioner v. John RUGGIANO, Respondent.
Judges: Justice SAYLOR files a dissenting statement.
Reporter: Pennsylvania State Reports
Volume: 611
Pages: 368–369

Head Matter:
26 A.3d 473
COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Petitioner v. John RUGGIANO, Respondent.
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
Aug. 1, 2011.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
AND NOW, this 1st day of August, 2011, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is hereby GRANTED, the order of the Superior Court granting a new trial is VACATED, and the matter is REMANDED to the trial court for hearings, after which the trial court may grant a new trial or reinstate the judgment of sentence. See Commonwealth v. Eck, 413 Pa.Super. 538, 605 A.2d 1248 (1992). Because the evidence of J.S.'s prior juvenile adjudication could be used to show bias or motive, an exception to the Rape Shield Law, the trial court is to determine the admissibility of this evidence at an in camera hearing consistent with the procedures and balancing test first outlined in Commonwealth v. Black, 337 Pa.Super. 548, 487 A.2d 396, 401 (1985). See also Commonwealth v. Fink, 791 A.2d 1235, 1241-42 (Pa.Super.2002). With regard to the other victim Ja.S., since his past sexual conduct is not at issue, the Rape Shield Law simply does not apply. Thus, the trial court is instructed to determine whether the evidence sought to be admitted as to Ja.S. is admissible under the traditional rules of evidence. See Commonwealth v. Johnson, 536 Pa. 153, 638 A.2d 940, 942 (1994).
Justice SAYLOR files a dissenting statement.