Court Opinion

ID: 9839142
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-11 20:16:21.468981+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:12:25.314132
License: Public Domain

SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
               JUVENILE COURT PROCEDURAL RULES COMMITTEE

                                  ADOPTION REPORT

                              Adoption of Pa.R.J.C.P. 405

        On September 11, 2023, the Supreme Court adopted Pennsylvania Rule of
Juvenile Court Procedure 405 governing the admission of a certified forensic lab report
in lieu of the expert appearing and testifying in court. The Juvenile Court Procedural
Rules Committee has prepared this Adoption Report describing the rulemaking process.
An Adoption Report should not be confused with Comments to the rules. See Pa.R.J.A.
103, cmt. The statements contained herein are those of the Committee, not the Court.

       The Committee was requested to consider a new Rule of Juvenile Court Procedure
mirroring Pa.R.Crim.P. 574 (Forensic Laboratory Report; Certification In Lieu of Expert
Testimony) governing the admission of a certified forensic lab report in lieu of the expert
appearing and testifying in court. The reasons for rulemaking include increased
consistency among the bodies of rules for prosecutors and defenders crossing over from
criminal proceedings to delinquency proceedings. Also, responses to offers of stipulation
are sometimes not received so having a formal mechanism would be beneficial. Further,
experts seem increasingly busy, and a rule that operates to relieve the burden of
appearing when reports are uncontested would allow the experts to focus on the
proceedings where reports are contested and would reduce lab testing backlogs.

       The Committee previously published proposed Pa.R.J.C.P. 405, which provided
for “notice and demand” procedures nearly identical to Pa.R.Crim.P. 574. See 44 Pa.B.
3306 (June 7, 2014). The Committee ultimately discontinued rulemaking because the
timeframes were not compatible with adjudicatory hearings for detained juveniles. See
Pa.R.J.C.P. 404(A) (hearing to be held within 10 days of the petition’s filing). Further,
several commenters indicated that stipulations were a widely used and effective
alternative to live expert witness testimony.

       Given the prior comments, the Committee considered a rule largely modeled after
Pa.R.Crim.P. 574 but that would exclude juveniles who were in pre-adjudication detention
given the 10-day adjudicatory window for detained juveniles. The rate of pre-adjudication
detention appears to be declining over time and most detentions now occur post-
adjudication. Consequently, the “detention exclusion” would not erode the value of the
rule. Additionally, the proposed rule would only be applicable in adjudicatory hearings
pursuant to Pa.R.J.C.P. 406; it would not apply to probation revocation hearings.

      The proposal was published for comment. See 52 Pa.B. 7266 (November 26,
2022). Two comments were received. The first commenter believed the proposed rule
was necessary because stipulations to admit laboratory reports are “not necessarily the
norm.”

      The second commenter was the American Association for Laboratory
Accreditation, which generally supported the rule. The Association recommended that
the Comment not name specific certifying organizations because the certifying
organization contained in the Comment no longer exists as named. Instead, the
Association suggested referencing the forensic testing standard and the standard for the
accrediting body. The Association provided information as to the specific standards. That
suggestion was incorporated into the Comment.

      This rule becomes effective January 1, 2024.

                                           2