People v. Willard, Cr. 43514
| Decision Date | 16 September 1983 |
| Docket Number | Cr. 43514 |
| Citation | 202 Cal.Rptr. 100,155 Cal.App.3d 237 |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
| Parties | PEOPLE of the State of California, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Jesse WILLARD, Defendant and Appellant. |
Michael J. Udovic, Pasadena, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for defendant and appellant.
John K. Van de Kamp, Atty. Gen., Carol Wendelin Pollack and Robert R. Anderson, Deputy Attys. Gen., for plaintiff and respondent.
NATURE OF APPEAL:
A jury found appellant guilty of robbery while armed. He appeals claiming error in refusing his request to voir dire the victim-complaining witness to determine his competency.
FACTS:
The evidence clearly established that one night appellant asked victim, whom he had met two weeks earlier, to help get appellant's car started. When appellant and victim arrived at the car, he was robbed of cash and several diamond rings by appellant and a waiting accomplice. In language of the street, victim had been "set up." Appellant knew of victim's unusual habit of wearing diamond rings on all his fingers.
Victim also testified that the accomplice suggested cutting off victim's hand or fingers to remove the rings after first robbing him, that appellant and the accomplice returned in a few minutes and took cash and rings from his pockets, and that the accomplice (the gunman) suggested killing victim at a junkyard.
Victim also testified about attempts on his life by strangers and acquaintance by spiking his drinks, a rape and attack on his daughter to persuade her to also spike victim's drinks and an anonymous phone call to dissuade victim from testifying in court.
DISCUSSION:
Before victim took the witness stand, defendant counsel moved to voir dire victim to determine his competence to testify. Counsel stated to the court that the previous trial 1 record showed that victim personally believed that after the robbery there was a conspiracy to kill him by spiking his drinks with PCP. Defense counsel characterized victim's statement as "outrageous", necessitating a voir-dire examination of victim to bring out his "present insanity or past insanity." The trial court denied the motion stating that the matter could be explored during cross-examination.
Defendant contends the trial court thus committed reversible error.
Evidence Code section 701 provides that a person is disqualified to be a witness if he is (1) incapable of expressing himself regarding the matter so as to be understood, or (2) incapable of understanding his duty to tell the truth. A witness is presumed competent absent a showing to the contrary. (People v. Knox (1979) 95 Cal.App.3d 420, 431, 157 Cal.Rptr. 238.) The competency of a witness is to be determined by the trial court, whose decision is not to be disturbed in the absence of a clear abuse of discretion. (Ibid.; People v. Blagg (1970) 10 Cal.App.3d 1035, 1039, 89 Cal.Rptr. 446.) The witness' competency depends upon his ability to perceive, recollect and communicate; whether he did so accurately and truthfully is a question of credibility to be resolved by the trier of fact. (People v. McCaughan (1957) 49 Cal.2d...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Lewis
...inconsistent and exaggerated statements does not indicate an inability to perceive [or] recollect. . . ." (People v. Willard (1983) 155 Cal.App.3d 237, 240, 202 Cal.Rptr. 100.) Nor does a witness's mental defect or insane delusions necessarily reflect that the witness lacks the capacity to ......
-
Lewis v. Davis
...has made inconsistent and exaggerated statements does not indicate an inability to perceive [or] recollect ...." (People v. Willard (1983) 155 Cal. App. 3d 237, 240 .) Nor does a witness's mental defect or insane delusions necessarily reflect that the witness lacks the capacity to perceive ......
-
People v. BROWN
...he did so accurately and truthfully is a question of credibility to be resolved by the trier of fact. [Citations.]" (People v. Willard (1983) 155 Cal.App.3d 237, 239-240; see also People v. McCaughan (1957) 49 Cal.2d 409, 420-421.) Inconsistencies in testimony do not disqualify a witness, b......
-
People v. Augustin
...is competent to testify. (People v. Lewis, supra, 26 Cal.4th at p. 360, 110 Cal.Rptr.2d 272, 28 P.3d 34; People v. Willard (1983) 155 Cal.App.3d 237, 239, 202 Cal.Rptr. 100.) In Lewis, the Supreme Court upheld the trial court's conclusion that the challenged witness was competent to testify......
-
Table of cases
...§§3:70, 3:80 Wilkinson, People v. (2004) 33 Cal. 4th 821, 849-850, 16 Cal. Rptr. 3d 420, §§17:60, 17:140 Willard, People v. (1983) 155 Cal. App. 3d 237, 202 Cal. Rptr. 100, §§6:10, 6:40, 6:90 Willden v. Washington Nat’l Ins. Co. (1976) 18 Cal. 3d 631, 135 Cal. Rptr. 69, §22:10 Willen v. Bog......
-
Witness competence
...by statute. Evid. Code §700. A witness is presumed to be competent unless there is a showing to the contrary. People v. Willard (1983) 155 Cal. App. 3d 237, 239, 202 Cal. Rptr. 100. However, a person is disqualified to be a witness if either of the following is true [Evid. Code §701]: • The......
-
Table of Cases null
...§2.1.1(3)(b) People v. Wilkinson, 33 Cal. 4th 821, 16 Cal. Rptr. 3d 420, 94 P.3d 551 (2004)—Ch. 1, §4.13.9(2)(a) People v. Willard, 155 Cal. App. 3d 237, 202 Cal. Rptr. 100 (2d Dist. 1983)—Ch. 2, §1.1.1(1) People v. Williams, 23 Cal. App. 5th 396, 232 Cal. Rptr. 3d 671 (3d Dist. 2018)—Ch. 4......
-
Chapter 2 - §1. Testimony.
...(1) Generally. As a general rule, every person is presumed competent to testify. Evid. C. §700; People v. Willard (2d Dist.1983) 155 Cal.App.3d 237, 239. See "Challenging competency,' ch. 2, §1.2.1. To be considered competent and qualified to be a witness, a person must (1) be capable of ex......