![]() ![]() to tailor the competency inquiry to the particular circumstances and intellect of the witness.” Commonwealth v. The question of the competency of a potential witness is within the discretion of the trial judge, who has “wide discretion. 555, 562–563 (1998) the remainder of the subsection is derived from Commonwealth v. Subsection (c). The initial segment of this subsection is derived from Demoulas v. 76, 78 (2005) (developmentally disabled) Commonwealth v. “The tendency, moreover, except in quite clear cases of incompetency, is to let the witness testify and have the triers make any proper discount for the quality of her understanding” (quotations omitted). 805, 806–809 (1994) (five year old permitted to testify about incidents that allegedly took place when the child was twenty-one and thirty-three months old despite inconsistencies and her inability to recall every detail in her testimony). 419, 424–428 (2010) (six year old permitted to testify about incidents that occurred when she was five despite inconsistencies in her ability to observe, remember, and recount facts and her initial difficulty with concept of a promise in connection with duty to tell the truth). Neither the inability of a witness to remember specific details of events nor inconsistencies in the testimony render the witness incompetent to testify, so long as the witness demonstrates “the general ability to observe, remember and recount.” Commonwealth v. This test applies to all potential witnesses. Subsection (b). This subsection is taken nearly verbatim from Commonwealth v. 915, 916 (1983) (“The probate judge acted well within his sound discretion in declining to have a conference in camera with the son of the parties, then twelve years old . . . .”). 43(a) (witness testimony, and assessment of the competency of a witness, must be done orally in open court) Hayden v. See also Section 504, Spousal Privilege and Disqualification Parent-Child Disqualification Section 511, Privilege Against Self-Incrimination. be allowed to testify” and “an unemancipated, minor child, living with a parent, shall not testify before a grand jury, trial of an indictment, complaint or other criminal proceeding, against said parent”). 233, § 20 (with certain exceptions, “neither husband nor wife shall testify as to private conversations with the other” “neither husband nor wife shall be compelled to testify in the trial of an indictment, complaint or other criminal proceeding against the other” “defendant in the trial of an indictment, complaint or other criminal proceeding shall, at his own request. A person otherwise competent to be a witness may still be disqualified from testifying. Subsection (a). This subsection is derived from G. While the competency of a witness is a preliminary question of fact for the judge, questions of witness credibility are to be resolved by the trier of fact. (2) an understanding sufficient to comprehend the difference between truth and falsehood, the wickedness of the latter, and the obligation and duty to tell the truth, and, in a general way, belief that failure to perform the obligation will result in punishment. (1) the general ability or capacity to observe, remember, and give expression to that which the witness has seen, heard, or experienced, and ![]() To be competent to testify, a witness must have In most trials, the defense will call its own witnesses and will conduct a direct examination, and the prosecution will usually conduct a cross-examination of the witnesses for the defense.Every person is competent to be a witness unless a statute or the Massachusetts common law of evidence provides otherwise. Almost always, the defense attorney will conduct a cross-examination of the plaintiff’s witness. When the attorney from the other side asks the witness questions, that lawyer is conducting a cross-examination.Īt trial, the plaintiff or prosecution will call a witness and conduct a direct examination. When one party’s attorney calls a witness to give testimony, the calling attorney will conduct a direct examination of that witness. ![]() The most common way for both parties to offer evidence to the court is through witness statements. If the plaintiff or prosecution offers evidence to prove their case, then the defendant will need to show why that evidence is not correct or is flawed in some way. The prosecution or plaintiff in a trial is required to prove the elements required by law to show that the defendant is responsible for the crime, act, or damages for which they are accused.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |