Smith v. State
Decision Date | 21 April 1981 |
Docket Number | No. 37298,37298 |
Citation | 247 Ga. 511,277 S.E.2d 53 |
Parties | SMITH v. The STATE. |
Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Denmark Groover, Jr., Frank H. Childs, Jr., Groover & Childs, Macon, for David Lenny Smith.
Joseph H. Briley, Dist. Atty., Gray, Arthur K. Bolton, Atty. Gen., Atlanta, for the State.
The appellant was convicted of murdering his wife, and he was sentenced to life imprisonment. In this appeal, his sole argument is that the trial judge abused his discretion in ruling that the appellant's two stepdaughters, ages eight and nine at the time of trial, were competent to testify.
The test for determining the competency of a child to testify as a witness is enunciated in Jones v. State, 219 Ga. 245, 246, 132 S.E.2d 648 (1963):
From our review of the trial transcript, we hold that the trial judge was authorized in finding that the two child witnesses were competent to testify.
Judgment affirmed.
All the Justices concur.
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Westbrook v. State
...during lunacy, and children who do not understand the nature of an oath, shall be incompetent witnesses.' In Smith v. State, 247 Ga. 511, 511-12 (277 SE2d 53) (1981), the Supreme Court defined the standard of competency of a child to be a witness as being 'not that he be able to define the ......
-
Butler v. State, 71320
...be interrogated on, and that if [s]he violates the obligation [s]he is subject to be punished by the court. [Cits.]" Smith v. State, 247 Ga. 511, 277 S.E.2d 53 (1981). The determination of the competency of a witness is a matter within the discretion of the trial court. See generally OCGA §......
-
Dumas v. State
...oath, but rather a simple understanding of truth and falsehood and the importance of telling the truth. As stated in Smith v. State, 247 Ga. 511-512, 277 S.E.2d 53 (1981), understanding the nature of an oath requires, not that he be able to define the meaning of an oath, nor that he underst......
-
Bright v. State
...truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. See Chapman v. State, 257 Ga. 19, 20 (3), 354 S.E.2d 149 (1987); cf. Smith v. State, 247 Ga. 511, 277 S.E.2d 53 (1981). 4. Appellant claims error in the court's failing, contrary to the Sixth Amendment right to confrontation and OCGA § 24-9......