# Smith v. United States

> District of Columbia Court of Appeals · April 30, 1980 · 414 A.2d 1189

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9648756

## Case

- **Full name:** Albert B. SMITH, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES, Appellee
- **Court:** District of Columbia Court of Appeals
- **Decided:** April 30, 1980
- **Citations:** 414 A.2d 1189; 1980 D.C. App. LEXIS 290
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Kern
- **Judges:** Newman, Chief Judge, and Kern and Ferren, Associate Judges
- **Cited by:** 19 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9648756

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- noting that “the trial court’s decision as to competency will be sustained even when it proceeds without a voir dire where the transcript reveals intelligible comprehension [by the witness] in terms of answering the questions that were asked” (internal quotation marks omitted)…

## Opinion text

KERN, Associate Judge,
concurring:
While I agree that the trial court erred in refusing to permit defense counsel during voir dire to question Latita Simms on her ability to recall events, I do not agree that its error deprived appellant of his Fifth Amendment right to due process in light of the opportunity afforded defense counsel at trial to examine the witness’ competency and the trial court’s determination again at this point that she was competent.
It is obvious that the court, by permitting one counsel but not the other to propound questions at the voir dire of the witness, erroneously exercised the discretion it has in the method of examining witnesses to determine their competency. However, as the court’s opinion convincingly demonstrates, the trial court’s error in the exercise of its discretion was not so severe as to require reversal. See Johnson v. United States, D.C.App., 398 A.2d 354, 366 (1979).

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9648756. Public record. Not legal advice.