Martini v. State, 13-81-317-CR
| Decision Date | 25 February 1982 |
| Docket Number | No. 2328,No. 13-81-317-CR,13-81-317-CR,2328 |
| Citation | 629 S.W.2d 253 |
| Parties | Al Lawrence MARTINI, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee. |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Peter J. Sapio, Jr., Galveston, for appellant.
James F. Hury, Jr., Dist. Atty., Galveston, for appellee.
Before BISSETT, YOUNG and GONZALEZ, JJ.
This is an appeal from a conviction by a jury of indecency with a child, wherein the trial court assessed punishment of eight years confinement. Al Lawrence Martini seeks a reversal on the grounds that the trial court abused its discretion by permitting the nine year-old child to testify. We affirm.
In response to appellant's request, the trial court held a competency hearing before the trial. The child testified that she understood the difference between the truth and a lie, that she knew that she must tell the truth and would do so. In reply to questions asked by the district attorney, defense counsel and the court, she indicated that the consequences of lying were a spanking, being sent to her room, and that God would punish her. She did have difficulty answering inquiries why she should tell the truth or what the oath meant. The appellant contends that the inability to articulate answers to these questions shows that she was not competent to testify.
Tex.Code Crim.Proc.Ann. Article 38.06 (Vernon 1979) provides:
It is well settled that the ruling of a trial court on the issue of competency will not be disturbed absent a showing of abuse of discretion. Watson v. State, 596 S.W.2d 867, 871 (Tex.Cr.App.1980); Villarreal v. State, 576 S.W.2d 51, 57 (Tex.Cr.App.1978), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 885, 100 S.Ct. 176, 62 L.Ed.2d 114 (1979); Garcia v. State, 573 S.W.2d 12, 14 (Tex.Cr.App.1978). A reviewing court must examine the entire record to determine whether an abuse of discretion has taken place. Villarreal v. State, supra; Fields v. State, 500 S.W.2d 500, 503 (Tex.Cr.App.1973). There is considerable authority in Texas that a child who knows it is wrong to lie and that he will be punished if he does so is a competent witness even though he does not comprehend the meaning of an oath. Sumner v. State, 503 S.W.2d 773, 774 (Tex.Cr.App.1974); Fields v. State, supra, and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Epperson v. State
...will not be disturbed absent a showing of abuse of discretion. Watson v. State, 596 S.W.2d 867, 871 (Tex.Cr.App.1980); Martini v. State, 629 S.W.2d 253 (Tex.App.--Corpus Christi 1982, no P.D.R.). A reviewing court must examine the entire record to determine whether an abuse of discretion ha......
-
Solis v. State
...court, and its ruling in that regard will not be disturbed on appeal unless an abuse of discretion can be shown. Martini v. State, 629 S.W.2d 253, 254 (Tex.App.--Dallas 1982). The rule was stated by the United States Supreme Court in Wheeler v. United States, 159 U.S. 523, 525, 16 S.Ct. 93,......
-
Hunter v. NCNB Texas Nat. Bank
...of a trial court on the issue of competency will not be disturbed on appeal absent a showing of an abuse of discretion. Martini v. State, 629 S.W.2d 253, 254 (Tex.App.--Corpus Christi 1982, no Insane persons are not competent to testify. TEX.R.CIV.EVID. 601(a)(1). "Incompetent persons" are ......
-
Hatchell v. State, 09-83-220-CR
...Villarreal v. State, 576 S.W.2d 51 (Tex.Crim.App.1978), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 885, 100 S.Ct. 176, 62 L.Ed.2d 114 (1979); Martini v. State, 629 S.W.2d 253 (Tex.App.--Corpus Christi 1982, no writ). There is nothing in Jimmy Jones' testimony to suggest he was not intelligent or observant. His......