People v. District Court In and For Summit County
Citation | 791 P.2d 682 |
Decision Date | 14 May 1990 |
Docket Number | No. 89SA454,89SA454 |
Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, Petitioner, v. The DISTRICT COURT, In and For SUMMIT COUNTY, State of Colorado, the Honorable W. Terry Ruckriegle, Judge Therein, Respondents. |
Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
Colorado, the Honorable W. Terry Ruckriegle, Judge
Therein, Respondents.
Supreme Court of Colorado,
En Banc.
May 14, 1990.
Peter F. Michaelson, Dist. Atty., Breckenridge, for petitioner.
Law Office of Rick J. Brown, Rick J. Brown, Breckenridge, for respondents.
The People petitioned for a rule to show cause pursuant to C.A.R. 21 in People v. Davis, No. 89CR122 (Summit County District Court). The defendant Sandra Davis has been charged with one count of child abuse, § 18-6-401, 8B C.R.S. (1986 & Supp.1989). At a pre-trial hearing the Summit County District Court (the district court) ruled that C.D., the four-year-old victim, was not competent to testify as a witness under subsection 13-90-106(1)(b), 6A C.R.S. (1987 & Supp.1989), because he does not understand the difference between telling the truth and telling a lie, and he is not capable of taking an oath to tell the truth. We issued a rule to show cause and we now make the rule absolute.
On November 6, 1989, the district court held a pretrial hearing to determine C.D.'s competency to testify at trial. During the hearing the district court, the district attorney, and counsel for the defendant questioned C.D. in the court's chambers.
At the hearing, the district court asked C.D. where he used to go to day care and C.D. answered, The following exchange then took place:
( [C.D.] nods his head.)
....
The court asked C.D. if he knew what it meant to tell the truth and C.D. shrugged his shoulders. The court asked C.D. if he knew what it meant to tell a lie and he shook his head. 1 After these exchanges the court brought C.D.'s mother into chambers in an attempt to make C.D. feel more comfortable.
The court then asked C.D. a series of questions designed to determine whether C.D. could tell the difference between telling the truth and telling a lie. C.D.'s statements indicated he does not know the difference between telling the truth and telling a lie. When the court again asked C.D. if he knew what it meant to tell the truth C.D. nodded his head, but C.D. could not describe in his own words what it means to tell the truth. The court asked C.D. whether, if given the choice, he would tell the truth or tell a lie, if he knew the difference between telling the truth and telling a lie, and if he knew what it means to be honest. C.D. shrugged his shoulders in response to each question.
When the court asked C.D. why he was saying that Sandy twisted his arm, C.D. answered, "Because." When the court asked, "Because why?", C.D. answered: "She twisted my arm." When the court asked if that was the truth or a lie, C.D. shook his head. The court asked, "Do you know?", and C.D. nodded his head. The court asked, "Which is it?", and C.D. shrugged his shoulders. The court asked C.D. if he knew what it meant to take an oath to tell the truth and C.D. shook his head. The court asked C.D. if it was right or wrong to tell the truth and C.D. said, "Right."
The court then asked if it was right or wrong to tell a lie and C.D. said, "Right."
The court then asked: "If we go into court and I ask you to promise to tell the truth, can you do that?" C.D. nodded his head. The court asked: "If we go into Court and you promise to tell the truth--if we go into Court and you are asked questions, will you tell the truth?" C.D. nodded his head.
The district attorney asked C.D. if he had ever told a lie. C.D. shook his head. The district attorney then stated, "You don't know what happens if you tell a lie then, do you?", and C.D. shook his head. The district attorney asked C.D. if he was telling the truth about Sandy, and C.D. nodded his head. The district attorney asked C.D. if he would tell the truth if the judge asked him to promise to tell the truth, and C.D. nodded his head.
Defense counsel asked C.D. if it would be a lie or the truth to say that someone's shirt was red when it was really blue, and C.D. said, "The truth."
The court asked C.D. a few final questions. C.D. nodded his head when the court asked him if he knew the difference between right and wrong, but C.D. could not explain the difference.
The court ruled that C.D. was not qualified to testify as a witness under section 13-90-106. The court stated that:
There are four general elements of competency for a witness to testify. Those are particularly as they relate to children. If the child has a capacity to observe, if the child has a capacity to remember, if the child has a capacity to relate what has happened, and the child recognizes a duty to tell the truth....
In this case, [C.D.] was able to describe to the Court in language appropriate for a child his age the events or facts with respect to which he is to be examined. The Court perceived him to have the capacity to observe things accurately, the Court perceived him to have the capacity to remember what had happened with regard to the events or facts alleged in this case. The Court also perceived him to have the capacity to relate those events. In this case, although [C.D.] indicated that he knew the difference between telling the truth and telling a lie, when the Court inquired, he could not distinguish between the two.... It appears to the Court that although [C.D.] indicated he would tell the truth, he does not know what it means to take an oath, that he does not know what it means to not tell the truth or to tell a lie, and does not appreciate the consequences of not telling the truth. The oath serves a function and that function is to require witnesses to tell the truth and to remind them of the consequences and thereby take an oath to tell the truth.
Although it appears that pursuant to 13-90-106(1)(b)(II), that within the parameters set forth by the legislature, [C.D.] would be competent. Those parameters do not include the recognition or the ability to tell the truth and the ability to take an oath, and the Court believes that is a paramount requirement of testifying, whether it be a child or an adult.
Therefore, the Court finds that [C.D.] is not competent to testify.
Section 13-90-106 states that:
(1) The following persons shall not be witnesses:
....
(b)(I) Children under ten years of age who appear incapable of receiving just impressions of the facts respecting which they are examined or of relating them truly.
(II) This proscription does not apply to a child under ten years of age, in any civil or criminal proceeding for child abuse, sexual abuse, sexual assault, or incest, when the child is able to describe or relate in language appropriate for a child of that age the events or facts respecting which the child is examined.[ 2
The question of whether, under subsection 13-90-106(1)(b), a child under ten years of age is competent to testify in a child abuse proceeding is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court. Lancaster v. People, 200 Colo. 448, 454, 615 P.2d 720, 724 (1980); People v. Estorga, 200 Colo. 78, 83, 612 P.2d 520, 524 (1980); Marn v. People, 175 Colo. 242, 245, 486 P.2d 424, 426 (1971).
Prior to the legislature's adoption of subsection 13-90-106(1)(b)(II), Colorado courts assessing the competency of child witnesses considered their ability to understand their obligation to testify truthfully. See e.g., Lancaster, 200 Colo. at 454, 615 P.2d at 724. The legislature modified the law of evidence by adopting subsection 13-90-106(1)(b)(II) in 1983. 1983 Colo.Sess.Laws 635. In this case we address the issue of whether, under subsection 13-90-106(1)(b)(II), a child must understand his or her obligation to tell the truth in order to be judged competent to testify.
Respondent relies upon People v. District Court of El Paso County, 776 P.2d 1083, 1086 (Colo.1989), 3 to support the argument that a child who does not understand the difference between telling the truth and telling a lie is not competent under subsection 13-90-106(1)(b)(II). In People v. District Court, we addressed whether the trial court erred in ruling that a child witness who was not competent to testify under subsection 13-90-106(1)(b)(II) was nonetheless available to testify under subsection 13-25-129(1)(b)(II), 6A C.R.S. (1987). Id. at 1087. Subsection 13-25-129(1)(b)(II) authorizes trial courts to admit the hearsay statements of a child sexual assault victim if the child is unavailable to testify. Respondent relies on the fact that in People v. District Court, 776 P.2d at 1086, the trial court found the child-victim not competent to testify because "she was unresponsive to questions in open court from both the prosecution and [the] court and could not state what it meant to tell the truth or to lie."
Respondent's reliance on the trial court's finding that the victim could not state what it meant to tell the truth or to lie is misplaced. In People v. District Court, 776 P.2d at 1087, we stated that
[p]ursuant to section 13-90-106(1)(b)(II) ... a child under ten years of age is not competent to testify in a sexual assault proceeding if he or she is not able to describe or relate in...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
People v. Whitman
... ... WHITMAN, Defendant-Appellant ... No. 04CA1428 ... Colorado Court of Appeals, Div. IV ... November 29, 2007 ... As Modified on Denial ... the prosecution of alleged offenders beyond taking victims to the district attorney's office or to court; had not been involved in the day-to-day ... Serpa, 992 P.2d 682, 684 (Colo.App.1999)(juror was associated with county victim assistance group) ... When these facts are ... ...
-
Haralampopoulos v. Kelly
...on other grounds,732 P.2d 1132 (Colo.1986), superseded in part by§ 13–90–106(1)(b)(II), C.R.S.2011, as stated in People v. District Court,791 P.2d 682, 685 n. 3 (Colo.1990), and other cases involving child sexual assault victims for the proposition that statements concerning responsibility ......
-
People v. Bowers, 89SC43
... ... Dwight Allen BOWERS, Respondent ... No. 89SC43 ... Supreme Court of Colorado, ... Nov. 13, 1990 ... Rehearing Denied Dec. 10, 1990 ... incest and sexual assault, and remanded the case to the district court for a new trial because of the erroneous admission into evidence of ... 3 The next day, K.B. was taken to a county health department office, where she was examined by a pediatric nurse ... ...
-
Galindo v. US
... ... No. 92-CF-448 ... District of Columbia Court of Appeals ... Argued June 11, 1993 ... able to demonstrate on anatomically correct dolls); People v. District Court, 791 P.2d 682, 685, 686 (Colo.1990) (en ... ...
-
The Child Witness
...State v. Weisenstein, 367 N.W.2d 201 (S.D. 1985). 3. State v. Superior Court, 719 P.2d 283 (Ariz.App., 1986). 4. People v. District Court, 791 P.2d 682, 686 (Colo. 1990). 5. Id. CRS § 13-90-106 states: (1) The following persons shall not be witnesses: (a) Persons who are of unsound mind at ......
-
Court Facility Dogs-easing the Apprehensive Witness
...Courtroom," available at www.courthousedogs.com/courtroom.html. 22. Id. 23. Id. 24. CRS § 13-90-106. See also People v. District Court, 791 P.2d 682 (Colo.1990) (child need not be able to explain what an oath means to be competent to testify); People v. District Court, 776 P.2d 1083 (Colo. ......