Court Opinion

ID: 9628306
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 09:16:30.886614+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:07:03.607812
License: Public Domain

STEWART, Justice,
dissenting:
I respectfully dissent for the reason that the logic of the Court’s opinion does not support the conclusion reached. The Court holds that the failure of the trial judge to determine the competency of the little girl to testify is harmless error. Under the circumstances of this case, that conclusion, in my view, is warrantless. Without her testimony there is a total insufficiency of evidence to prove the corpus delicti of the crime. The only other possible evidence tending to establish the corpus delicti is the testimony of the father that he had seen the defendant place his hands on the little girl’s panties. That evidence does not establish, especially under the “clear and convincing” evidence standard enunciated in State v. Ferry, 2 Utah 2d 371, 275 P.2d 173 (1954), that a crime had been committed under § 76-5-404. In my view, the Court, while paying verbal deference to this principle, misapplies the standard. Without the testimony of the little girl, it is clear that the corpus delicti could not be established. Under these circumstances, I find it baffling for the majority to hold the trial judge’s failure to determine her competency harmless error. In truth, the conviction must stand or fall on the credibility of her testimony.
This case should be remanded to the trial court for a determination of the competency of the 3½ year old girl to testify and a new trial, if warranted, after such a determination.