Opinion ID: 2061712
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Denial of Right to Cross-Examine

Text: In the absence of the Jury Mr. Therrien was examined to test his competency as a witness. He was interrogated both on direct and cross-examination as to his ability to recall relevant facts. Finally, after testifying that he was a patient in a State mental institution, he was asked, Now, have you had any shock treatments since you have been there? Defense Counsel, after objection and some colloquy, asked, [I] am not going to be allowed to pursue that line of questioning before the Jury?and the Justice below responded: No. I think that should come from sources other than the witness. If he is as bad off as this line of inquiry would seem to indicate, why this can be demonstrated by evidence dehors this witness' testimony, and should be by competent medical testimony. The record does not disclose any offer or proof nor any specific reason for asking the question objected to. The Jury, through cross-examination of Mr. Therrien, was informed of facts bearing on the weight to be given his testimony including his confinement at the Augusta State Hospital, the fact that he required medication and was on probation. Unsoundness of mind does not per se render a witness incompetent, the general rule being that a lunatic or weak-minded person is admissible as a witness if he has sufficient understanding to apprehend the obligation of an oath and is capable of giving a correct account of the matters which he has seen or heard with respect to the questions at issue. The decision as to the competency of such a person to testify rests largely within the discretion of the trial court. 97 C.J.S. Witnesses § 57b, at 446. See also Pease v. Burrowes, (1893) 86 Me. 153, 175, 29 A. 1053. We find no abuse of discretion by the Presiding Justice in excluding the line of questioning having to do with shock treatments. We note that evidence of this type of therapy was not excluded in the ruling objected to, the Justice wisely suggesting that such testimony should be by competent medical testimony. Such testimony was not offered.