Opinion ID: 1511651
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Ability of Sean to Understand the Duty of a Witness to Tell the Truth.

Text: The purpose of the trial judge's inquiry into an infant's understanding of the duty to speak the truth is that of determining whether the child possesses moral responsibility  that is, a consciousness of the duty to tell the truth. See, e.g., State v. Grossmick, supra , 153 N.J. Super. at 192; Hare, supra, 37 N.J. Super. at 565; 2 Wigmore, supra, § 506 at 596. It matters not from what source this consciousness derives. So long as the child understands (a) the difference between right and wrong; (b) that to tell the truth is right; and (c) that he will be punished in some way should he lie to the court, this requirement is satisfied. See, e.g., Wheeler, supra, 159 U.S. at 524, 16 S.Ct. 93; Hill, supra; State v. Collier, supra ; People v. Lamb, supra ; Harris v. State, 97 Okl. Cr. 259, 261 P. 2d 909 (Ct. App. 1953). See generally, Note, supra, 10 Wyo. L.J. at 218; McCormick on Evidence, supra, § 62 at 140 n. 7. In the present case, the trial judge's conclusion that Sean understood the duty of a witness to speak the truth is amply supported by the evidence. Sean equated truthfulness with good and lying with bad, and stated that he tried never to be bad for fear of receiving a beating. He further indicated that he would tell the court what had transpired the way it [was]. Moreover, although Sean at times gave inconsistent answers, the record supports the trial judge's conclusion that the child was attempting to recount what had occurred as best he could.