Legal Opinion

State v. Price

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided April 2, 1985No. 174A84PublishedCited by 16 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

MARTIN, Justice.

Defendant’s first assignment of error is that the trial court erroneously ruled that the victim was competent to testify. There is no fixed age limit below which a witness is incompetent to testify; rather, the question in each case is whether the witness understands the obligations of the oath and has the capacity to understand and relate facts which will assist the jury in reaching its decision. E.g., State v. Sills, 311 N.C. 370, 317 S.E. 2d 379 (1984); State v. Oliver, 302 N.C. 28, 274 S.E. 2d 183 (1981). The determination of the competency of a child to testify is a…

2Cases cited14 opinions

  1. United States v. YoungSupreme Court of the United States · 1985
  2. Illinois v. VitaleSupreme Court of the United States · 1980
  3. NielsenSupreme Court of the United States · 1889
  4. State v. OliverSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1981
  5. State v. JerrettSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1983

9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by16 opinions

  1. Pueblo v. Echevarría RodríguezSupreme Court of Puerto Rico · 1991
  2. State v. GardnerSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1986
  3. State v. BeltonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1986
  4. State v. FreelandSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1986
  5. State v. PrevetteSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1986

11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API