Opinion ID: 1982402
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Tender Years Exception

Text: Because I would find the testimony regarding the child victim's out of court statements admissible as prior consistent statements, I agree that we need not decide here whether the tender years exception should be adopted in Pennsylvania. As it now stands, the exception has not been adopted. See Commonwealth v. Haber, supra . [7] I note, however, my dissent from the majority's admonition to the legislature to expeditiously propound legislation to provide appropriate remedies for the extraordinary problem of proof in such cases. Majority Opinion at 301, n. 2. I agree that continued legislative review of the serious problems of child physical and sexual abuse is needed. However, I feel that it is manifestly inappropriate for the judiciary to attempt to instruct the legislature as to which of several proposed reforms will best serve the public interest. [8] This is precisely what the majority has done by appending to its general admonition citations to statutes and law review articles which enacted or supported a single proposed reform  the tender years exception. Majority Opinion at 301, n. 2.