Greensburg woman competent to stand trial in child sex case |

Greensburg woman competent to stand trial in child sex case

Rich Cholodofsky
Corby Jo Kinzey, is brought into the office District Judge Chris Flanigan, in Greensburg, before her arraignment for alleged rape of a child, on Wednesday, Aug. 15, 2018.

A Greensburg woman charged with recording herself in a sex act with a young child was ruled competent to stand trial on Tuesday.

Corby Jo Kinzey, 24, was charged along with her ex-boyfriend and another woman of sex counts related to the incident in which police contend she had sexual contact with a 5-year-old boy.

Kinzey is being held in jail without bond as she awaits trial on 35 counts, including, rape, child pornography, conspiracy and other offenses.

Her trial had been delayed for months after Kinzey was evaluated in October and found not to be competent to stand trial. Westmoreland County Judge Christopher Feliciani on Tuesday, after reviewing a doctor’s report, determined Kinzey now could assist with her defense.

A trial date won’t be set until after prosecutors and defense attorney Michael DeMatt meet with the judge next month.

Police contend Kinzey was directed to have sex with the child by her former boyfriend, Charles Jason Hunter, 33. Hunter was charged with eight criminal counts including rape. Hunter is scheduled to appear before Feliciani next month for a status conference.

A third woman, Amanda Smith, 29, of Hempfield, is awaiting trial on child pornography charges. Police contend Smith distributed Kinzey’s video on social media.

Rich Cholodofsky is a Tribune-Review staff writer. You can contact Rich at 724-830-6293, [email protected] or via Twitter .

Categories: Local | Westmoreland
TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.