Opinion ID: 2517025
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Mr. Pearson's Testimony

Text: [¶16] In its second issue, West America claims that Mr. Pearson's testimony was not probative of any material facts or issues in the case and the trial court erred in receiving documentary evidence based on his testimony. In support of its claim, West America points to parts of the transcript indicating that Mr. Pearson was confused during some of his direct examination. Although West America's argument is not completely clear, it apparently claims that Mr. Pearson was not competent to testify. [¶17] The general rule is that a person is competent to testify if he has a sufficient understanding to receive, remember, and narrate impressions and is sensible to the obligations of the oath. Larsen v. State, 686 P.2d 583, 585 (Wyo. 1984). Failure to object to the competence of a witness at the time of the trial limits our review to plain error. See, e.g. , id. at 584. In order to establish plain error, the appellant must satisfy a three-part test: `    First, the record must be clear as to the incident which is alleged as error. Second, the party claiming that the error amounted to plain error must demonstrate that a clear and unequivocal rule of law was violated. Finally, that party must prove that a substantial right has been denied him and as a result he has been materially prejudiced.    ' Id. (citations omitted). [¶18] We recently considered another case involving Mr. Pearson, Ms. Joelson and West America. West America Housing Corp. v. Pearson, 2007 WY 184, 171 P.3d 539 (Wyo. 2007). We noted that Mr. Pearson's testimony in that case was somewhat unclear: At trial Pearson testified in his own behalf. Pearson was 84 years of age at that time (November 6, 2006), and his testimony was not always as coherent as might be desired. Id., ¶ 4, 171 P.3d at 540. Nevertheless, we recognized that Mr. Pearson related some relevant evidence during his testimony. Id. [¶19] The same conditions existed in this case. Mr. Pearson did seem to be confused during some of his testimony. However, he was able to relate relevant information regarding this case and West America did not raise an objection regarding Mr. Pearson's competence during the trial. On appeal, it does not offer any cogent argument or pertinent authority to establish it was plain error for the trial court to allow Mr. Pearson to testify. [¶20] Moreover, we have examined the record and discovered that Mr. Pearson did not provide the foundation for any of Vandon's exhibits. The parties stipulated to the admission of many of the exhibits at the beginning of the trial. The district court admitted Vandon's other exhibits into evidence during other witness testimony. Interestingly, West America did offer exhibits for admission during its cross examination of Mr. Pearson. It, therefore, is surprising that it claims on appeal he was not competent to provide the foundation for any exhibits. Based upon these circumstances, we summarily reject West America's arguments.