holding that witness’s descriptions of a child’s conduct constituted an admissible “short hand statement of fact”
How later courts described this case
- holding that witness’s descriptions of a child’s conduct constituted an admissible “short hand statement of fact”
- dismissing defendant’s argument that the trial court erred by declining to instruct the jury on the actus reus for each criminal charge where defendant raised no constitutional argument regarding this issue at trial
- holding that witness’s descriptions of a child’s conduct constituted an admissible “short *758 hand statement of fact”
- rejecting the argument that the child’s incompetence rendered his out-of-court statements for purposes of medical diagnosis or treatment inadmissible
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Judge Gkeene
dissenting.
After the trial court declared (outside of the presence of the jury) the child to be incompetent to testify in the trial, the defendant requested that the jury be informed of the finding. The trial court denied the request and I agree with the defendant that this was error requiring a new trial. 1 1 accordingly dissent.
The jury was called upon in this case to determine the truth and reliability of the child’s statements put before them in the form of hearsay testimony of adult witnesses. The defendant was entitled to present to the jury any relevant evidence affecting the credibility of the child. See Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150, 150-154 , 31 L. Ed. 2d 104, 106-09 (1972). The declaration by the trial court that the child was not competent to testify in the trial is relevant evidence on the credibility of the child. See State v. Rogers, 109 N.C. App. 491, 498 , 428 S.E.2d 220, 224 (child’s inability to testify at trial is relevant to whether an earlier hearsay statement was trustworthy), cert. denied, 334 N.C. 625 , 435 S.E.2d 348 (1993), cert. denied, 511 U.S. 1008 , 128 L. Ed. 2d 54 (1994). The trial court therefore erred in rejecting the defendant’s request to inform the jury that it had declared the child to be incompetent to testify.
On this basis, I would award the defendant a new trial.
. Contrary to the majority, I believe that the defendant has cited authority in his brief in support of this argument.