Dumas v. State

Although I concur with the remainder of the majority opinion, I respectfully dissent as to Division 2, and I dissent in part to Division 3.

1. I do not agree that the victim in this case was shown to be competent within the meaning of OCGA § 24-9-5 (a). That statute requires “that the witness has sufficient understanding to receive, remember and narrate impressions and is sensible of the obligation to tell the truth. [Cit.]” Ambles v. State, 259 Ga. 406, 409 (2) (b) (383 SE2d 555) (1989). See also Dorsey v. State, 206 Ga. App. 709, 713 (3) (426 SE2d 224) (1992) (physical precedent only)…