explaining judicial competency investigations apply in cases where sexual abuse complainants are young children because child’s memory is uniquely susceptible to falsely implanted suggestions which may cause child difficulty in distinguishing fact from fantasy when called to testify
How later courts described this case
- explaining judicial competency investigations apply in cases where sexual abuse complainants are young children because child’s memory is uniquely susceptible to falsely implanted suggestions which may cause child difficulty in distinguishing fact from fantasy when called to testify
- stating that in the "narrow group of cases, involving allegations of sexual abuse inflicted upon children of tender years, the existence of taint is a threshold question to determining competency."
- “An expert may testify to assist the factfinder in evaluating competency in those cases where taint is present. Here, as no proof of taint was demonstrated, expert testimony was unnecessary.”
- stating, “[a]llegations are not evidence”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Justice EAKIN,
concurring.
In the original consideration of this case, I expressed the belief that without a threshold showing of taint, more than a defendant’s say-so, such allegations should not result in a hearing on competence. Now, there having been nothing more than young victims and defendant’s cry of “taint,” these children have testified one more time, and we are still wrestling with matters which have for years been handled with traditional jurisprudential concepts. As Justice Nigro ably notes again, this is a matter of credibility, not competence, and should have been dealt with accordingly.