Courtroom Comfort Dogs Allowed In PA, State Supreme Court Rules

CHESTER COUNTY, PA — A comfort dog who accompanied an autistic child witness in a 2018 murder trial in Chester County did not generate undue sympathy nor was it an abuse of the court's discretion to allow it, Pennsylvania's highest court decided last week.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court last week issued what Chesco's D.A. called "a significant opinion" about the use of comfort dogs for victims and witnesses who testify in criminal trials. The ruling stems from a 2018 murder trial in Chester County where Melody, a comfort dog, was allowed to sit next to a child witness during testimony.

In November 2018, Sheron Jaeln Purnell was found guilty of the 2016 murder of Kevin Jalbert in Coatesville. Commonwealth vs. Purnell was the impetus for the comfort dog ruling.

Before the trial, Deputy District Attorney Emily Provencher sought the court's approval to have a comfort dog by the side of an autistic child witness who was afraid to testify about the murder. The child witness was testifying to having seen a shooter pull a gun and point the gun at the witness, court records show. Judge David Bortner ruled in favor of using a comfort dog for the witness after having found no previous case decisions involving service dogs, according to case records.

The comfort dog was not seen by the jury during the trial. The case record said the dog was hidden under the witness stand. The dog was referred to as a "service dog" in court, in order to avoid creating undue sympathy by use of the words "comfort dog," according to the case record.

The Purnell case, though, was appealed to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court on the basis that the comfort dog had generated sympathy from the jury and the Commonwealth had failed to establish the dog's necessity.

The court held that the trial judge did not abuse his discretion in permitting the comfort dog and developed a balancing test to assess the degree to which the use of a comfort dog will assist the witness in testifying in a truthful manner against any possible prejudice to the defendant's right to a fair trial, the D.A.'s Office explained.

Pennsylvania Supreme Court Chief Justice Max Baer wrote in the decision, "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. 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. For the reasons stated below, we agree with the Superior Court and, therefore, affirm that court's judgment."

Chester County District Attorney Deb Ryan said, "This is a big victory for victims and witnesses throughout the Commonwealth. Comfort dogs can provide a great deal of support to vulnerable victims and witnesses — particularly children — and can help them overcome their anxiety or fear about testifying in a trial."

Ryan added, "Our goal as prosecutors is to bring out the truth and determine what happened. For some victims and witnesses, the aid of a comfort dog gives them the strength to tell their story and their truth. This is another important tool in our pursuit of justice."

This was a case of first impression, meaning that the legal issue of comfort dogs had never been argued before in Pennsylvania courts.

Comfort dogs are allowed in other states, Ryan's Office said.

Deputy District Attorney Erik T. Walschburger argued the case before the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.

Make sure you know what's happening in your town. Sign up to get Patch emails and don't miss any local news: https://patch.com/subscribe.