Opinion ID: 1792134
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 15

Heading: Did the trial court err in allowing the victim and her brother to testify?

Text: ¶ 62. Hersick contends that, since under the law of Mississippi, a child under the age of thirteen cannot be charged with a felony, the children [6] should not have been allowed the authority to enforce the law against him, without the mother's confirmation of the accusations. Hersick further contends that the trial judge should have examined the children to find out if they knew the difference between right and wrong, because they are too young and inexperienced to understand the responsibility of their actions. ¶ 63. Hersick cites Mohr v. State, 584 So.2d 426 (Miss.1991), in which this Court held: Mississippi courts generally allow children of tender years to testify if competent. Rule 601 of the Mississippi Rules of Evidence provides that every person is competent to be a witness unless they are incompetent or otherwise restricted. It is in the sound discretion of the trial judge to determine the competency of a child witness. Before allowing the child to testify, the judge should determine `that the child has the ability to perceive and remember events, to understand and answer questions intelligently and to comprehend and accept the importance of truthfulness.' Id. at 431 (citations omitted). ¶ 64. In Mohr, this Court did state that a judge should determine whether a child has the ability to perceive and remember events, to understand and answer questions intelligently and to comprehend and accept the importance of truthfulness. Id. There is nothing in the record here to indicate that the trial judge made any such determination. However, the Mohr Court stated that the judge should, not must. Therefore, pursuant to Rule 601 of the Mississippi Rules of Evidence, it is presumed that the children were competent witnesses, absent some indication that they were not. ¶ 65. After studying the children's testimony, it is clear that they were competent witnesses. Their testimony was consistent, in that they did not contradict themselves or each other. They were intelligent, had the ability to understand and answer questions, and could remember the date in question and the events that took place. There is no indication that they were coerced or provoked into accusing Hersick. Thus, this issue is without merit.