Opinion ID: 1988834
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Competency of Child Witness

Text: Defendant argues that the child victim, age six, was allowed to testify without an adequate evidentiary foundation to demonstrate her competency to understand the obligation to tell the truth. V.R.E. 601(b)(2) (person disqualified as witness if incapable of understanding the duty of a witness to tell the truth). In this regard we have said: The question of an infant witness's competency is for the trial court, resting in its discretion and based on its observation and examination of the child. Absent demonstrable error, the ruling will not be disturbed. We agree with the judgment in 2 Wigmore Evidence 598 (3d Ed.1940) that reviewing courts should not be wasting time revising rulings as to competency of children they have never seen or heard. This is the trial court's function. State v. Audette, 128 Vt. 374, 378, 264 A.2d 786, 789 (1970). On this record, we find no abuse of discretion. Defendant says that the only indication the child understood the duty to tell the truth was that her mother would be mad at her if she lied. We find that the child's answers were appropriate given the questions asked her and demonstrate that she was not incapable of understanding the duty ... to tell the truth. If counsel for the defendant doubted that conclusion, he was free to pursue the inquiry further, but did not.