Court Opinion

ID: 9619959
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 05:35:54.554455+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:49:25.996969
License: Public Domain

MoALLISTER., C. J.,
dissenting in part.
I dissent from that portion of the majority opinion which holds that the trial court did not err in refusing to allow the father to call his child as a witness and to examine her in open court. This flouts our holding in Kreutzer v. Kreutzer, 226 Or 158, 359 P2d 536, in which we held that in view of the express provisions of ORS 44.020 and 44.030, the trial court cannot refuse to permit minor children to testify if they are qualified under the statutes. It may be, as stated by the majority, that discretion should be vested in the trial court to determine whether a child should be permitted to testify in a given case, but if so such authority must come by a change in the statute. This court has no authority to amend the statute by judicial fiat.