Court Opinion

ID: 9958795
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-09 20:14:30.973306+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:17:35.387617
License: Public Domain

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
                                   EASTERN DISTRICT

 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,                     : No. 234 EAL 2023
                                                   :
                         Respondent                :
                                                   : Petition for Allowance of Appeal
                                                   : from the Order of the Superior Court
                   v.                              :
                                                   :
                                                   :
 JAMES SMITH,                                      :
                                                   :
                         Petitioner                :

 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,                     : No. 235 EAL 2023
                                                   :
                         Respondent                :
                                                   : Petition for Allowance of Appeal
                                                   : from the Order of the Superior Court
                   v.                              :
                                                   :
                                                   :
 JAMES SMITH,                                      :
                                                   :
                         Petitioner                :

                                           ORDER

PER CURIAM

       AND NOW, this 9th day of April, 2024, the November 9, 2023 Order is VACATED,

and the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is GRANTED.             The issues, as stated by

petitioner, are:

       (1)     In a sex abuse case where the uncorroborated testimony of two child
               complainants was at issue, did the Superior Court err by holding
               [p]etitioner had no right to ask prospective jurors if they held a fixed
               belief that children would not lie about being sexually abused,
               contrary to this Court’s decisions holding that an inquiry into
             prospective jurors’ potential bias as to the trustworthiness of certain
             categories of witnesses is necessary on voir dire?
      (2)    Has the Superior Court, contrary to the terms of the statute and the
             intent of the legislature, impermissibly expanded the scope of
             criminal liability of 18 Pa.C.S. §6318, unlawful contact with a minor?

      Issue (1) set forth above is to be ARGUED, and the Prothonotary is DIRECTED to

list it for oral argument at the same session as, and consecutive to, Commonwealth v.

Walker, 277 WAL 2023. Issue (2) will be SUBMITTED on the briefs.

      Petitioner’s November 21, 2023 Petition to Amend Order is DENIED AS MOOT.

      Justice McCaffery did not participate in the consideration or decision of this matter.

                         [234 EAL 2023 and 235 EAL 2023] - 2