NCJ Number
163102
Journal
St. John's Law Review Volume: 69 Issue: 3-4 Dated: (Summer-Fall 1995) Pages: 663-673
Date Published
1995
Length
11 pages
Annotation
A recent New York Supreme Court decision held that a pretrial suppression hearing is proper in a child sexual abuse case to determine whether and to what extent the child's testimony was the product of a suggestive interview procedure; however, this decision was inappropriate.
Abstract
The defendant in People v. Michael M was indicted on charges of sexually abusing his half-sister Brenda. Brenda's father reported the suspected abuse and had Brenda examined by a physician, who asked Brenda if she knew why she had been brought to his clinic. When Brenda answered no, the physician informed her that she was there as a result of suspected abuse by her stepbrother. The physician then asked Brenda whether her stepbrother had in fact touched her and she responded yes. The court compared suggestive questioning of a child to cases involving testimony rendered unreliable by hypnosis or suggestive identification procedures where the witness's potential testimony may be suppressed as a result of the suggestive procedures used. The court relied on psychological studies indicating the suggestibility of children and on the New Jersey Supreme Court's decision in State v. Michaels. However, this decision takes the issue of suggestibility one step too far, because safeguards to ensure the veracity of a child witness's testimony are inherent in a criminal trial. This decision has set an inappropriate standard that has the potential of silencing child victims, whose testimony is often the only means of prosecuting a child sexual abuse case. In fairness to both the child accuser and the defendant, the child should have the same right as other victims to put forth the case and all relevant evidence before the trier of fact. Footnotes