## Facts

- A three-year-old child, A.D., was left in the care of her grandmother along with another child.
- After being picked up later that day, A.D. appeared lethargic and, without prompting, told her mother that her genital area hurt and that the juvenile, N.C., had touched her there.
- A.D.’s mother observed redness and irritation and reported the matter, leading to a recorded forensic interview of A.D. at a child-advocacy setting.
- The recorded forensic interview was treated as “testimonial” for Sixth Amendment purposes.
- At the juvenile adjudicatory hearing, A.D. was called and sworn but gave no substantive answers about the alleged abuse, responding largely with nonverbal gestures before curling into a fetal position on the stand.
- The juvenile court excused A.D. and admitted the recorded forensic interview under Pennsylvania’s Tender Years Hearsay Act, and N.C. was adjudicated delinquent largely based on the video.

## Issues

1. Whether admitting a testimonial, out-of-court recorded forensic interview violated the Confrontation Clause when the child complainant appeared in court but provided no substantive testimony and could not be meaningfully examined.
2. Whether a statutory hearsay exception for young children can permit admission of testimonial statements absent a realistic opportunity for effective cross-examination.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania affirmed the order reversing the delinquency adjudication.
- The court held that admitting the testimonial recorded forensic interview violated N.C.’s Sixth Amendment confrontation rights under the case’s specific circumstances.
- The court rejected the view that the child’s physical presence on the witness stand, without meaningful responsiveness, satisfied confrontation.

## Legal Principles

- Testimonial hearsay is inadmissible unless the declarant is subject to meaningful cross-examination at trial (or the defendant had a prior opportunity to cross-examine and the declarant is unavailable).
- A formal “opportunity” to cross-examine is insufficient when the witness is effectively noncommunicative and examination is conceded to be futile; confrontation requires a realistic ability to test the testimonial statement.
- State hearsay statutes, including tender-years provisions, cannot override the Sixth Amendment’s limits on admitting testimonial statements.
- The ruling was confined to the record presented, where the child did not provide substantive testimony and the prosecution conceded continued questioning would be futile.

## Conclusion

Because the Commonwealth’s central evidence was a testimonial recorded forensic interview and the child complainant’s in-court appearance did not permit meaningful examination, admission of the recording violated the Confrontation Clause, requiring reversal of the juvenile delinquency adjudication.


In re N.C., 105 A.3d 1199 (Pa. 2014)