 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Humphrey v. State2/3/1999
d utterances and present sense impressions does not violate the constitutional right to confrontation. We find no error.
As to the photographs, Humphrey's attorney did not object to admitting them into evidence below, and we do not find plain, or any, error. The photographs were not hearsay statements by R.B. but were mere documentation of Slamin's observations. Slamin testified at trial and was subject to cross-examination and confrontation.
Finally, Humphrey contends that the six-year-old M.B. was not competent to testify at trial. Before the trial, Humphrey's attorney questioned M.B. outside the presence of the jury regarding his competence to testify as a witness. M.B. demonstrated an understanding of first-hand knowledge as the difference between seeing something and hearing someone say something. M.B. also testified that he knew someone was in heaven because Humphrey had told him so and that Santa Claus and the tooth fairy were real but that Superman, Spiderman, and the Ninja Turtles were not real. Judge Murphy then questioned M.B. and told him to tell the truth about what he knew personally, rather than what he had been told later.
Humphrey's attorney then argued that M.B. was not competent to testify because he lived in a "fantasy world" and could be led to say anything by what others said. However, Judge Murphy found that M.B. was very intelligent, knew the difference between truth and lies, understood the duty of a witness to tell the truth, and was capable of understandably communicating relevant matters to the jury.
After M.B. had testified at trial, Humphrey's attorney moved to strike his testimony again on the grounds that he was an incompetent witness, pointing out the prompting required to overcome M.B.'s recalcitrance on the stand. However, Judge Murphy ruled that M.B., although "very hyperactive" and "a very difficult witness," was "an intelligent young man" who understood the difference between truth and falsity and who had been able to communicate testimony intelligibly to the jury and so remained a competent witness.
A child witness is competent to testify at trial if the child "demonstrates the ability to perceive facts accurately, to relate them intelligibly, and to understand the need to testify truthfully." "The trial court is given great discretion in determining the competency of a child to testify." In this case, although the transcript shows that M.B. was somewhat unruly and required a great deal of prompting before he would answer the questions put to him, it supports Judge Murphy's findings both after pretrial questioning and after M.B.'s trial testimony that M.B. was intelligent, understood the difference between truth and falsehood, understood the duty to answer truthfully, and could communicate his observations to the jury. We do not find that the Judge abused his discretion.
We AFFIRM the conviction.
Page 1 2 3 Alaska DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|