Court Opinion

ID: 9636884
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 14:47:06.962183+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:09:50.608178
License: Public Domain

Justice NIGRO,
concurring.
I continue to believe, as more fully explained in my dissenting opinion in the first Commonwealth v. Delbridge, 578 Pa. 641, 855 A.2d 27 (2003) (“Delbridge I ”), that taint is a matter of credibility, not competency, and is therefore not the proper subject of either expert testimony or a competency hearing. On that basis, I disagreed with the majority’s decision in Delbridge I to remand the instant matter for a new competency hearing to explore Appellant’s allegations of taint. However, as such a competency hearing has now been held, consistent with the mandate of a majority of this Court, I certainly agree with the majority here that Appellant has failed to meet his burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that the children were, in fact, tainted.