Opinion ID: 1496105
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Leading child witnesses

Text: Although Clark does not question the competency of the two minor victims to tell the truth, he claims error on the part of the trial court in refusing to declare a mistrial after the prosecutor repeatedly asked leading questions of the five- and four-year-olds. During the course of the examination of the four-year-old witness concerning her rape, the rape of her five-year-old sister and the sexual misconduct with her other sister, the following took place: Q. Did your grandma tell you to tell the truth? A. (Affirmative nod.) Q. And, the other people that told you to come in here and talk today, did they tell you to tell the truth? A. (Affirmative nod.) Q. Is that what you're doing? A. (Affirmative nod.) Q. Have you told other people about what happened to you? A. (Affirmative nod.) Q. When Ron touched you with his tongue, you said that he touched your private part? A. (Affirmative nod.) Q. Did he touch the skin on your private part? A. (Affirmative nod.) MR. HARDIN: Your Honor, I'm going to object to leading the witness. May I approach the bench? (THEREUPON, Counsel for the State and Defense approached the bench.) MR. HARDIN: Your Honor, I've objected approximately ten times on her leading the witness, both of these minor witnesses. She's leading them in critical areas. Our objections have been overruled and at this time I think the proper ruling is a mistrial because she's basically testifying. THE COURT: The motion for a mistrial is denied. The prosecution, you may lead this witness as this witness is a child four years old, she's reluctant to testify. She obviously is scared and it's difficult to communicate with her. For those reasons and because of her age, you may lead the witness. Granted, the record reflects continual leading questions propounded to the five- and four-year-old witnesses by the State. Yet, a mistrial is a drastic remedy to which the court should resort only when there has been an error so prejudicial that justice cannot be served by continuing the trial. Friend v. State, 315 Ark. 143, 865 S.W.2d 275 (1993). It should only be ordered when the fundamental fairness of the trial itself has been manifestly affected. Furlough v. State, 314 Ark. 146, 861 S.W.2d 297 (1993). We have often said that if it appears necessary to lead a child witness to elicit the truth, we will affirm the trial judge's decision in allowing leading questions, absent an abuse of discretion. Jackson v. State, 290 Ark. 375, 720 S.W.2d 282 (1986); Wallace v. State, 177 Ark. 892, 9 S.W.2d 21 (1928). In cases involving very young females who are alleged to have been victims of sexual crimes, we will not disturb the action of the trial judge in permitting leading questions to be asked by the prosecution, if it appeared to the judge to be necessary to elicit the truth, unless his discretion has been abused. Hamblin v. State, 268 Ark. 497, 597 S.W.2d 589 (1980). The youth, ignorance, and timidity of the witness are important factors militating against the finding of abuse of discretion. Id. In Jackson, supra , we examined the criteria for permitting the leading of a child witness and noted that our cases do not hold that a witness cannot testify below a certain age. We approve the procedure of leading child witnesses in rape cases because of (1) the seriousness of the crime, (2) the natural embarrassment of the witness about the incident, (3) the child's fear of being in a courtroom full of people, (4) the necessity of testimony from a victim, (5) threats toward victims from those perpetrators, and (6) to avoid the possibility that an accused might escape punishment for a serious offense merely because of the victim's reluctance to testify. Id. Looking at the circumstances of the direct examinations of both young girls, we hold that the trial judge did not abuse his discretion in allowing leading questions to elicit their testimony because they had allegedly been the victims of an especially intrusive, violent crime and were having to describe the acts to a room of strangers as well as in front of the perpetrator. Given the ages of the victims, the nature of the crime, and the girls' timidity, we understand the necessity of asking leading questions of them, and we commend the trial court for its patience in searching for the truth. See Hamblin, supra . Similarly, in Jackson, supra , the witnesses were only eight- and five-years-old and answered by nodding their heads affirmatively or negatively or by saying yes or no. Here, the minor children were much more articulate in their answers. Simply put, Clark has failed to prove that such a prejudicial error occurred during his trial, and the court satisfactorily explained its reasons for permitting the leading questions: This is a child witness who is having a difficult time coping with the situation. I'm going to allow the State to lead the witness. The jury will take into consideration the questions are leading and give the testimony whatever weight the jury decides it should have. I request that you don't need to lead the witness any more than is absolutely necessary and don't lead on absolutely critical matters. We have no hesitancy in holding that there was no error in allowing the prosecutor to repeatedly ask leading questions of the two child witnesses and for denying Clark's request for a mistrial. Affirmed.