Opinion ID: 1599055
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: the trial court erred by failing to voir dire five-year old korey jarrack to determine competency.

Text: ¶ 14. Bailey contends that the trial court erred by refusing to voir dire Korey on his competency before allowing him to testify. The defense objected before Korey testified and asked the court to qualify this witness to whether he knows what the truth is. The trial court overruled the objection citing Rule 601 of the Mississippi Rules of Evidence, which provides that every person is competent to be a witness unless the person falls within one of the exceptions to the rule, which in this case do not apply. Miss. R. EVID. 601. ¶ 15. Bailey's primary contention is that Korey's testimony was at times inconsistent with Hill's and Justin's. He also asserts that Korey had trouble remembering events as well as difficulty understanding and answering questions intelligently. ¶ 16. Bailey, citing Bandy v. State, 495 So.2d 486, 492 (Miss.1986), argues that where the testimony of a child of tender years is offered as evidence in a trial, the child must first be examined by the trial judge to show that the child has a comprehension of past events and a moral appreciation of the truth. ¶ 17. The State asserts that the rule in Bandy was the rule prior to the adoption of the Mississippi Rules of Evidence in January, 1986 and that under Rule 601 no such showing was required. It cites Ryan v. State, 525 So.2d 799 (Miss.1988) to support its position. In Ryan, the appellant argued that the trial court had erred in allowing a six year old to testify. This Court held that: Under the new Mississippi Rules of Evidence, Rule 601, involving the competency of witnesses, reads as follows, Every person is competent to be a witness except as restricted by Miss.Code § 13-1-5 (competency of spouses) and § 13-1-11 (persons convicted of perjury or [subornation] of perjury), or by these rules. With this rule and code section in mind, the trial court conducted a pre-trial competency hearing for Alicia. Noting the trial court's pre-rule procedure in examining the child, the trial court made a finding supported by the record that the child had the capacity to understand the questions, frame intelligent answers, and had a moral responsibility and consciousness to speak the truth. In addition to the persuasive testimony of Alicia, this Court holds that this argument is settled by the wording of Mississippi Rule of Evidence 601 ... Ryan, 525 So.2d at 801 (emphasis added). ¶ 18. Bailey cites this Court's decision in Brent v. State, 632 So.2d 936 (Miss.1994) for the proposition that `[b]efore allowing a child witness to testify, the trial judge should determine `that the child has ability to perceive and remember events, to understand and answer questions intelligently and to comprehend and accept the importance of truthfulness.' Brent, 632 So.2d at 942 (quoting Mohr v. State, 584 So.2d 426, 431 (Miss.1991) (citing House v. State, 445 So.2d 815, 827 (Miss.1984))). ¶ 19. The State asserts that the determination required in Brent does not require a separate voir dire. In the case sub judice, although the trial judge did not separately voir dire Korey, Korey was asked several preliminary questions by the State which we find sufficient for the trial court to conclude that Korey was a competent witness under the Brent standard. Korey testified in part as follows: Q: ... All you have to do is tell the truth. Can you do that? A: (No response.) Q: Korey? A: What? Q: Can you tell the truth? A: Uh-huh (affirmative). Q: You will? Let me ask you this. . . . Q: Come on, buddy. If I told you that it was cold and rainy outside, would that be a lie or would that be the truth? A: A lie. Q: A lie? And why is that? A: Because it's not. Q: Okay. What's it like outside? A: Huh? Q: What's it like outside? Is it cold and rainy? A: Huh-uh (negative). Q: What is it? A: It's sunny. Q: Sunny. And what kind of pants are you wearing? A: Jeans. Q: Jeans? Are they long or short? A: Short. . . . ¶ 20. We hold that the trial court did not err in refusing to separately voir dire Korey as to his competency prior to his testimony. Under Miss. R. EVID. 601, Korey was a competent witness. Furthermore, although the trial judge in Brent did conduct voir dire of the young witness before she testified, Brent does not explicitly require a separate voir dire to make the competency determination. Korey was preliminarily asked questions by the State which did not concern substantive matters and by which the trial judge could determine that the Brent standard had been met. The competency of a witness is to be determined by the trial court, in its discretion. Bowen v. State, 607 So.2d 1159, 1160 (Miss.1992). This issue is meritless.