Opinion ID: 3178608
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: T.J.’s Competency to Testify

Text: ¶14. Children of tender years may testify as long as they are deemed competent, and the competency of a child witness is in the sound discretion of the trial court. Mohr, 584 So. 2d at 431. “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. (quoting House v. State, 445 So. 2d 815, 827 (Miss. 1984)). This Court gives deference to such findings, for the trial judge alone among the judiciary observed the manner and demeanor of the child and heard her testimony; he “smelled the smoke of battle.” See Rochell v. State, 748 So. 2d 103, 110 (Miss. 1999). ¶15. Tubbs argues the trial court failed to determine whether T.J. “possessed the ability to perceive and remember the events.” However, the test is not whether the child can remember the event, but whether the child can “perceive and remember events.” See Mohr, 584 So. 2d at 431. The trial court determined T.J. was able to remember events. She remembered the judge from the previous trial. She knew how old she was, that she went to school, and the names of her teachers. ¶16. As to her ability to comprehend and accept the importance of truthfulness, she knew she would get in trouble if she acted up at school and knew that it was bad to say someone did something that he or she really did not do. When asked what happened to people who tell 7 stories on other people, she responded, “They get in trouble.” When asked by whom, she said, “Your parents” and that “[God] will punish you.” All of her answers at the hearing evidence her ability to understand and answer questions intelligently. The court then questioned D.J., who stated that she had received no bad reports from T.J.’s teachers and that T.J. was reading almost on a first-grade level while still in kindergarten. ¶17. The trial court then determined that T.J. had sufficiently shown that she could understand what it means to tell a lie versus telling the truth, and that she knew that telling a lie “can get you in trouble with both man and God.” The court determined the issue whether or not she could remember the exact event went more to the weight of her credibility, which was for the jury to evaluate.7 ¶18. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in deeming T.J. competent to testify.8