Opinion ID: 2079616
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: psychiatric and neurological examination of a witness

Text: The defendant also claims error in the trial court's denial of his motion for a psychiatric and neurological examination of the victim for purposes of determining her competency to testify. In support of his motion the defendant pointed to inconsistencies in the victim's testimony and to medical testimony at trial regarding the possible effects on the victim's memory of the injuries caused by the defendant's having shot her in the head. The court held a preliminary hearing on the issue of competency and denied the motion. The defendant claims that the court reached the wrong conclusion on the basis of the evidence before it. But `[t]he court is not bound to order an examination on the question merely because counsel for the accused requests that it be done, where the court, after hearing the testimony of the witness, has no doubt of his [or her] mental soundness.' State v. Vars, 154 Conn. 255, 268, 224 A.2d 744 (1966). A psychiatric and neurological examination of a witness can be a tool of harassment. United States v. Benn, 476 F.2d 1127, 1131 (D.C. Cir. 1973). The competency of a witness is a matter peculiarly within the discretion of the trial court and its ruling will be disturbed only in a clear case of abuse or of some error in law. State v. Manning, 162 Conn. 112, 115, 291 A.2d 750 (1971). See also State v. Piskorski, supra, 715; State v. Orlando, 115 Conn. 672, 675, 163 A. 256 (1932). On the basis of its observations of the witness'demeanor, ability to answer questions, ability to receive correct impressions, ability to recollect and narrate intelligently, and ability to appreciate the moral duty to tell the truth, the court concluded that there was not sufficient doubt as to her competency to warrant ... a psychiatric examination. We cannot say that the court abused its discretion. There is no error.