Title: State v. Wyse

State: washington

Issuer: Washington Supreme Court

Document:

71 Wn.2d 434 (1967) 429 P.2d 121 THE STATE OF WASHINGTON, Respondent, v. GLEN LESTER WYSE, Appellant.[*] No. 38634. The Supreme Court of Washington, Department Two. June 15, 1967. Sullivan, Guterson, LaRose & Rindal, by Lewis Guterson, for appellant (appointed counsel for appeal). Charles O. Carroll and Neal J. Shulman, for respondent. WEAVER, J. There is evidence, if believed, that supports a verdict of guilty. The jury believed the evidence, for it found defendant-appellant guilty of one count of taking indecent *435 liberties on the person of a female child 14 years of age, and guilty of one count of the crime of sodomy. Defendant makes one assignment of error: It appears from the assignment that the trial court limited defense counsel in his inquiry into the competency of the complaining witness to testify. Such is not the case. We have read the entire record. The clinical psychologist of the Seattle public school system and the school counselor testified at length concerning many characteristics of the complaining witness while attending a school for retarded children. Over objection, there was admitted into evidence a file of school records and reports made by social workers, teachers, psychologists, and counselors. No further offer of proof was made. The trial court instructed: No exception was taken to the instruction and it became the law of the case. Defendant's sole contention is that the trial judge abused his discretion when he allowed the complaining witness to testify because: (1) she was of unsound mind; (2) her mental age was less than 10 years; and (3) she was incapable of receiving just impressions of fact and relating them truthfully. We do not agree. Before a jury was impaneled, the court held a pretrial hearing in which defense counsel summarized for the court the school records of the complaining witness, which included *436 reports by various members of the Seattle school system regarding her abilities and inabilities, her background, home and school adjustments, together with the analysis and conclusions of those making the reports. In addition, the trial judge interrogated the complaining witness during the pretrial hearing to test her competency as a witness. The trial court concluded: We find nothing in the record to support the conclusion that the complaining witness was of unsound mind. It is true that she attended a school for the mentally retarded; she just wasn't as smart as some other kids. [1] If it is established that a witness is of unsound mind then the trial judge may, as a matter of law, declare that he is not competent to testify. RCW 5.60.050. There is nothing in the record before us to support such a conclusion. In State v. Hardung, 161 Wash. 379, 381, 297 Pac. 167 (1931) (quoted with approval in State v. Bishop, 51 Wn.2d 884, 322 P.2d 883 (1958)), this court announced the following rule: *437 [2] The third facet of defendant's contention that the complaining witness was incapable of receiving just impressions of fact and relating them truthfully is without merit. The guidelines by which the competency of a witness of tender years is to be determined was set forth recently in State v. Allen, 70 Wn.2d 690, 424 P.2d 1021 (1967), as follows: The testimony and cross-examination of the complaining witness more than meet this test. She was competent to testify as a matter of law. Her credibility was for the jury to determine. The trial judge did not abuse his discretion. The judgment is affirmed. FINLEY, C.J., ROSELLINI and HAMILTON, JJ., and BARNETT, J. Pro Tem., concur. [*] Reported in 429 P.2d 121.