The oldest child of a man accused of killing his wife — the boy’s mother — will not have to testify if there is a trial.

On Thursday, Judge Maureen Skerda ruled that the “tender years exception” applies in the case of the child who was seven years old when his mother, Jessica L. White, was killed in Chandlers Valley, allegedly by her husband and the boy’s father, Matthew B. White, 36.

District Attorney Rob Greene called Licensed Professional Counselor Kiley Thiel who is providing counseling services for the child.

After being accepted by the court as an expert witness, Thiel testified that she believed the boy would suffer serious emotional distress and lasting effects if he were to be forced to testify. Also, she said she thought the boy would “shut down” and be unable to communicate if asked questions about his mother and father on the witness stand.

Matthew White’s attorney, Robert Kinnear, asked Thiel if testifying by closed-circuit television would be possible.

She said it causes emotional distress to the boy any time he is asked questions about his mother or father.

The “tender years” ruling has further impacts on testimony in the case.

Kinnear said the admission of testimonial evidence of interviews of the boy without the ability to question the boy about them would violate his client’s rights.

Greene called two Pennsylvania State Police troopers who responded to the June 21, 2017 incident.

Former Cpl. James Shaw was the supervisor at the Warren barracks at the time of the incident and was one of the first officers to arrive at the scene, he said.

When he arrived, he saw troopers tending to a man and a woman, he testified. He took two troopers and went to “clear” the house — make sure there were no threats inside.

He was met immediately by a large, black dog, that seemed friendly, and then by two young children. He asked if anyone else was inside and was told their older brother was.

He said the troopers called for the boy, who came out of a bedroom. After getting him outside, Shaw and one other trooper finished clearing the house for threats while the third trooper stayed with the children.

After that, Shaw talked to the oldest boy, asking him what had happened.

Kinnear argued that “interview” was testimonial.

“Why did you ask?” Greene said.

Shaw explained that two people were shot and he didn’t know by whom. “We’re trying to figure out what’s going on out there,” he said.

Trooper Scott Sipko of the Erie barracks was called out a few hours after the incident when the “major case team” was activated.

Sipko testified that when he arrived at the scene, he was assigned to talk to the boy.

He went to the house where the boy was located, made sure a family member was present, and recorded an interview.

Kinnear argued that “the purpose of the interview was to gather evidence” and that it was testimonial and inadmissible without the ability to question the boy.

Greene asked what Sipko knew of the case at that time.

He said he believed that “Mrs. White had passed and he probably would, too,” because he had been told Matthew White was shot in the chest. He said he did not have a suspect in mind, although he had considered “the spouse… defendant.”

Greene asked why Sipko was talking to the boy.

“At the time it was to find more information,” he said.

“Can you prosecute dead people?” Greene asked.

“No,” Sipko said.

Greene argued that Sipko was not collecting evidence for the prosecution of Matthew White. “How can you be furthering prosecution when there’s not going to be prosecution because he’s going to die?” Greene said in arguing that the Sipko interview be admissible.

Skerda ruled that Shaw’s interview would be admissible.

She said she would review case law related to the Sipko interview and defer ruling on it.

Video

Also at the hearing on Thursday, the parties discussed Greene’s motion to compel discovery.

Skerda said White had sent a memo in February indicating that he had recordings from the day of the incident.

“He indicates there are surveillance CDs from his security system,” Greene said.

“I asked my client,” Kinnear said. “He said those CDs do not exist.”

He could not produce whatever video evidence there is because “the surveillance system is in the custody of the commonwealth,” he said.

Skerda ruled that such recordings would be inadmissible. “They’re barred from being submitted at trial since they do not exist,” she said.