Opinion ID: 2272101
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: The Competency of the Complaining Witnesses to Testify

Text: 1. Standard of Review This Court will overturn a trial justice's competency ruling only if there has been an abuse of discretion. State v. Lynch, 854 A.2d 1022, 1029 (R.I.2004). The trial justice is afforded considerable deference in making a competency ruling since he is in the best position to assess the witness's present ability to comprehend the obligation of this oath, and to give a correct account of what he may have seen or heard. Id. (quoting Seabra v. Trafford-Seabra, 655 A.2d 250, 252 (R.I. 1995)). When there is any doubt concerning a witness's minimum credibility, it should be resolved in favor of allowing the jury to hear the testimony and judge the credibility of the witness themselves. Lynch, 854 A.2d at 1030. 2. Discussion The trial justice in the instant case conducted a two-day competency hearing, allowing both defendant and the state to question the complaining witnesses. Further, Dr. Stewart presented testimony and his opinion about the competency of the witnesses. After hearing the complaining witnesses and the expert witness testify, the trial justice found all three complaining witnesses competent to testify given their appreciation of the need to tell the truth and their ability to observe, recollect, and communicate. The defendant contends the trial justice abused his discretion in finding two of the three complaining witnesses, Tracy and Deborah, competent to testify at trial. Specifically, defendant draws attention to discrepancies in Tracy's testimony, her testimony that she would be unable to identify defendant if she saw him, and her inability to explain the differences between a male and a female. In further support of his position, defendant notes Tracy's inability to explain the word promise, her inability to identify the roles of a judge, lawyer, or prosecutor, as well as weaknesses in her recollection. The defendant highlights the fact that Tracy spontaneously uttered statements such as he touched me, and that Tracy had inconsistencies in her testimony. Additionally, Mr. Rivera contends that Tracy's admission that she had rehearsed her testimony further supports his argument that she was incompetent to testify. Similarly, Mr. Rivera argues that it was an abuse of discretion for the trial justice to find Deborah competent to testify. To support his argument, defendant notes that Deborah was unable to differentiate between a man and woman, that she did not know the meaning of the word oath, and that she had practiced her testimony before the competency hearing. Rule 601 of the Rhode Island Rules of Evidence requires that a witness be competent to testify. Lynch, 854 A.2d at 1029. To find a witness competent to testify, the trial justice must make four determinations: the witness must be able to `observe, recollect, communicate, and appreciate the necessity of telling the truth. ' Id. (quoting Seabra, 655 A.2d at 252). Furthermore, there is no per se rule that disqualifies individuals with developmental disabilities or mental illnesses from testifying at trial. See id. (finding a sixteen-year-old developmentally disabled youth competent to testify); State v. Franklin, 103 R.I. 715, 723-24, 241 A.2d 219, 225 (1968) (noting that there is no presumption disqualifying a mentally ill witness). Rather, competency is to be determined by the trial justice on a case-by-case basis. See Pierce v. New England Telephone & Telegraph Co., 86 R.I. 326, 330-31, 134 A.2d 421, 423 (1957). In the case under review, Tracy demonstrated her ability to observe and communicate her observations when she identified a pen and a piece of paper that the prosecutor was holding. She also exhibited her ability to recollect and communicate when she identified her address, the people with whom she lives, and her pets. Tracy demonstrated an appreciation for the necessity of telling the truth when she agreed to say I don't remember if she did not recall an answer to a question. She also exhibited an understanding of the consequences of lying and promised not to lie. When the prosecutor asked whether a piece of paper was red, Tracy corrected the prosecutor, stating that the paper was white, thus showing that she was able to correctly observe the color of the paper, communicate her observation, and tell the truth. Although Tracy admitted to rehearsing her testimony, this does not change our analysis of her competency. Testimony rehearsal goes to the credibility of the witness, not his or her competency. Cf. State v. Russell, 950 A.2d 418, 434 (R.I.2008) (approving a trial justice's consideration of a witness's testimony rehearsal in passing on the credibility of her testimony). It was within the province of the trial justice to consider the witness's testimony in light of the fact that she had rehearsed her testimony. Tracy's honesty about having rehearsed her testimony could be seen further as adding to her credibility and her appreciation of the need to tell the truth. Tracy was unable to define the word promise, but a witness need not be able to explain such abstract concepts. Rather, he or she must be able to appreciate that he or she must be truthful. Tracy did state during the competency hearing that she would be unable to identify defendant if she saw him, [4] but she was able to identify him during the actual trial. Finally, Tracy's testimony that she could not differentiate between a man and a woman, and her confusion over questions about Deborah, do not alter our assessment, considering that the totality of her testimony exhibited her ability to observe, recollect, and communicate. We agree with the trial justice that although Tracy responded to questions very literally, her literal understanding of language does not preclude her from being able to communicate. Similarly, Deborah displayed her ability to recall and communicate facts as she named the members in her family, described her pets, recalled what she ate for breakfast, and recited her home address. Deborah did display some confusion concerning what she had eaten the previous day, but she asked for clarification. Additionally, when she could not recall an answer, she chose not to answer the question, rather than give an incorrect answer. Deborah also displayed an appreciation for telling the truth when she stated that you should tell the truth and a lie is bad. Furthermore, she stated that if she did not understand a question about something that occurred in 2005, she would state that she could not remember. Deborah's inability to articulate the difference between a man and a woman does not bear on her ability to observe, recollect, and communicate, given the totality of her testimony. Moreover, for the reasons noted above, Deborah's rehearsal of her testimony and her inability to define oath are not sufficient grounds to find her incompetent to testify. Considering the totality of the evidence adduced at the competency hearing, we are satisfied that the trial justice's ruling was a sustainable exercise of his discretion. B