CALIFORNIA EVIDENCE: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL
...
Competency of Witnesses
......
In General
.........Criminal Case Law
12 Cards On This Topic:
Even assuming D properly objected to DA witness’ competency to testify, no substantial basis for trial court to exclude testimony on that ground.
Duty to suspend crim proceedings arises when there is doubt as to D's ••competency•• to stand trial, not when there is merely a doubt as to mental disorder or developmental disability that doesn't implicate such competency.
Court had no duty to intervene where D not disqualified as witness under Evid. Code §701, merely "not as alert" after taking medication.
Objections to competency of minor witness must be made to trial court; minor competent despite inconsistencies and possible coaching.
As no evidence of procedures which would trigger need for a taint hearing re competency, and processes existed to challenge minor V via cross-exam, counsel's conduct not unreasonable under prevailing professional norms.
Witness with cerebral palsy, merely difficult to understand, not inherently or automatically incompetent under EC 701.
Trial court determines competency of witness to testify; decision not disturbed unless clear abuse of discretion. Court may deny motion to voir dire witness when cross-examination proper.
Witnesses are presumed competent. Whether witness perceives accurately and communicates truthfully are questions of credibility for trier of fact to resolve.
Incorrect or inconsistent testimony goes to credibility, rather than witness' competency to testify.
No error in voir diring W in jury's presence where competency ruling did not signify judicial approval nor hinder defense in attacking credibility.
During voir dire to determine competency, improper to inquire into witness' knowledge of courtroom proceedings or knowledge of facts of case. Neither inquiry relates to witness' competency to testify.
To qualify, child witness need not fully understand adult oath-only that some punishment will befall if truth not disclosed.