CALIFORNIA EVIDENCE: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL
...Competency of Witnesses
......Age
.........Minor Found Competent
 14 Cards On This Topic:
  • Admission of D's minor son's prelim. hearing testimony not barred by EC 1291, not damaging to son, who was properly found competent, and did not deny D's confrontation rights.
  • 8 year old W, 4 at time of murder of her pregnant mother and fetus, competent to testify and admission of her testimony did not violate D's 6th Amend. rights.
  • 5-year-old competent; no need to threaten punishment for failure to tell truth; failure to recall all details or to testify without inconsistencies are issues relating to credibility, not competency.
  • Child victim's failure to specify precise date, time or circumstance did not render "generic testimony" legally insufficient to support conviction.
  • 5-yr.-old witness's "fantastical" statements, though troubling, ultimately bore on her credibility, not her competency, and were not sufficient to disturb trial court's ruling finding her competent.
  • Reversal required where D was denied an opportunity to effectively cross-examine child b/c she did not answer 100s of counsel's questions, including 150 seeking substantial information on important issues.
  • D's due process rights not violated where victim, his teenaged daughter, failed to give specific details re time and circumstances of each rape count for which he was charged.
  • Inconsistencies and conflicts in sexual assault V's testimony resolved by trial court; testimony reasonably supported court's findings D had forcible intercourse with V on certain date.
  • Minor's statements re abuse by father not inadmissible on basis of competency where inability to testify was probably result of fear caused by formality of proceedings.
  • Inconsistencies in testimony and possibility that foster parents made suggestions did not make child incompetent.
  • Inconsistencies in testimony do not render child incompetent. Child competent unless incapable of expressing self so as to be understood or incapable of understanding duty to tell truth.
  • Testimony of young child credible; no corroboration of testimony re child abuse required.
  • Testimony of 7-year-old properly admitted, even though minor did not understand meaning of oath; minor extensively voir dired and understood need to tell truth.
  • Young child may be competent even if cannot remember some simple facts. Subsequently given testimony, may be used to support ruling on qualifications.


    •