HARRISBURG – The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania has unanimously decided that a trial witness may be accompanied by a “comfort dog” on the stand, if that action both leads to truthful testimony and minimizes harm to a defendant.
In a Sept. 22 ruling authored by Chief Justice Max Baer, the state’s high court approved such a move, if the comfort dog’s presence passed the balancing test established by the Court.
“We hold that a trial court should balance the degree to which the accommodation will assist the witness in testifying in a truthful manner against any possible prejudice to the defendant’s right to a fair trial,” Baer said.
“Here, the trial court allowed a witness to testify with the assistance of a comfort dog, and the Superior Court concluded that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in this regard. We agree with the Superior Court and, therefore, affirm that court’s judgment.”
Baer and his colleagues explained that other states that allow witnesses to testify with the help of emotional support dogs and said it’s allowed, on the condition that steps are taken to minimize any potential harm to a defendant.
“Trial courts have the discretion to permit a witness to testify with the assistance of a comfort dog. In exercising that discretion, courts should balance the degree to which the accommodation will assist the witness in testifying in a truthful manner against any possible prejudice to the defendant’s right to a fair trial,” Baer said.
The defendant in this action, Sheron Purnell, was convicted of third-degree murder in the 2016 shooting death of a man in Coatesville and sentenced to up to 47 years in prison.
Lawyers for Purnell had argued to the Superior Court of Pennsylvania that the trial judge in the Chester County Court of Common Pleas abused his discretion when he allowed a comfort dog to accompany a teenage witness, A.H., who testified against Purnell at trial.
Defense counsel argued that the dog, from the sheriff’s K-9 unit, would “generate sympathy” among jurors for the girl, who is also autistic. Meanwhile, the prosecution argued that the dog was trained to accompany witnesses in court and soothe any fear A.H. may have had about testifying.
The judge stipulated that Melody, a black Labrador Retriever, had to stay beneath the witness stand during A.H.’s testimony, told the jury to ignore the dog and not to use the animal as a lens through which to see her as more sympathetic.
In both the Superior Court and the state Supreme Court’s view, the trial court judge’s rationale was reasonable in the Purnell trial.
Justices from the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania adopted guidelines from their counterparts in Connecticut, which would provide for a balancing test – one that considers whether a comfort dog would assist in a witness in providing truthful testimony, while allowing judges to limit any potential prejudice towards a defendant by blocking jurors’ view of the dog and providing the jury with proper instructions.
In her concurring opinion, Justice Christine Donohue agreed with the majority’s concept of a balancing test – but said that in the instant Purnell case, prosecutors “presented no evidence to demonstrate that the presence of the sheriff’s dog would enable the witness to testify more reliably and completely.”
According to Donohue, since defense counsel for Purnell did not argue that point at the trial, they should not be permitted to argue it on appeal.
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania case 71 MAP 2020
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com