State v. Robertson, 55602
| Decision Date | 12 June 1972 |
| Docket Number | No. 2,No. 55602,55602,2 |
| Citation | 480 S.W.2d 845 |
| Parties | STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. L. C. ROBERTSON, Appellant |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
John C. Danforth, Atty. Gen., Richard S. Paden, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.
Frank Anzalone, Brent J. Williams, Clayton, for appellant.
STOCKARD, Commissioner.
L. C. Robertson was found guilty by a jury of manslaughter and sentenced to imprisonment for a term of ten years. We affirm.
The sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the conviction is not challenged. A jury reasonably could find that on December 7, 1969, appellant inflicted fatal wounds upon his wife by use of a butcher knife.
Appellant's first point is that the trial court erred in permitting the testimony of Demmetrist Perryman, the son of the deceased, because 'there was no showing on voir dire that (he) understood the nature of the oath administered in courts of law and the true nature of the results of not telling the truth under oath.'
At a hearing out of the presence and hearing of the jury, Demmetrist testified that he was nine years of age and in the fourth grade at school. He stated that he remembered what occurred when his mother was killed, that he would tell the truth, and when one did not tell the truth it would be a lie. He also testified that if one told a lie he would 'get put in jail,' that he believed in God, and that if he told a lie God would punish him.
The determination of the competency of a witness is a matter within the sound discretion of the trial court, State v. Jones, 360 Mo. 723, 230 S.W.2d 678; State v. Hastings, Mo., 477 S.W.2d 108, and in reviewing the determination of the trial court on the issue of an abuse of discretion an appellate court may look to the preliminary examination of the child and also to his testimony at the trial. State v. Hastings, supra. In the determination of the competency of a witness when challenged because of age, 'the fundamental elements are (1) present understanding of or intelligence to understand, on instruction, an obligation to speak the truth; (2) mental capacity at the time of the occurrence in question truly to observe and to register such occurrence; (3) memory sufficient to retain an independent recollection of the observations made, and (4) capacity truly to translate into words the memory of such observation.'
We have read the testimony of Demmetrist given at the preliminary hearing and at trial. It was straightforward and the answers were responsive. In view of our review of his testimony and the answers given by Demmetrist as to his belief in God and the punishment to be expected for telling a lie, we conclude that the trial court did not err to the prejudice of appellant in permitting him to be sworn and testify as a witness for the State.
Appellant's second and last point is that the trial court erred in denying his motion for a new trial because 'Demmetrist Perryman * * * was being 'coached' during his testimony.'
At a hearing on the motion for new trial, Irma Jean Robertson, appe...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Singh
...Service Co., 354 Mo. 823, 191 S.W.2d 653 (1945).5 This court may and also has considered her testimony during the trial. State v. Robertson, 480 S.W.2d 845 (Mo.1972). Any inconsistencies which do not vitiate a child's testimony go to the question of credibility, rather than competency. Stat......
-
State v. Robinson
...is for the discretion of the trial court and will not be reversed except for clear abuse. Feltrop, 803 S.W.2d at 10; State v. Robertson, 480 S.W.2d 845, 846 (Mo.1972). The circuit judge in this case proceeded properly. A hearing was held before trial to determine competency of the witness. ......
-
State v. Johnson
...case is for the trial court as a matter of discretion and will not be disturbed except for abuse of that exercise. State v. Robertson, 480 S.W.2d 845, 846[1-3] (Mo.1972); State v. Oswald, 306 S.W.2d 559, 563[7-9] The pro se initiative to submit the competency of prosecution witness Bobbie J......
-
State v. Ball
...v. Starks, supra, at 409. If the child evidences some belief in God and punishment for false testimony, this is sufficient. State v. Robertson, supra, at 846--847; State v. Greer, 313 S.W.2d 711, 713 (Mo.1958); Burnam v. Chicago Great Western R. Co., supra, at 861--62. Although dicta in Sta......