Opinion ID: 1242050
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: the competency of the witness

Text: The defendant asserts that the trial court erred in permitting the seven-year-old brother of the victim to testify because the boy was incapable of receiving just impressions of the facts, and was therefore incompetent under section 13-90-106, C.R. S.1973. We disagree. The court conducted an in camera hearing and questioned the witness about his understanding of the obligation to testify truthfully and his observations about the incident on September 3, 1977, and expressly determined that he was a competent witness. Although there was some confusion on the part of the witness as to the date of the incident, that confusion, by itself, does not add up to incompetency under the record of this case. We find no abuse of discretion in the trial court's determination of the witness' competency. E. g., Marn v. People, 175 Colo. 242, 486 P.2d 424 (1971); Jordan v. People, 161 Colo. 54, 419 P.2d 656 (1966); Hood v. People, 130 Colo. 531, 277 P.2d 223 (1954); Wesner v. People, 126 Colo. 400, 250 P.2d 124 (1952). The judgment is affirmed.