State v. Deutor
842 So. 2d 438, 2002 La.App. 4 Cir. 1869, 2003 La. App. LEXIS 724 (2003)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A child witness is competent to testify if they possess a proper understanding of the difference between truth and falsehood, which can be demonstrated through practical application rather than abstract definition. A trial court's determination of competency is granted wide discretion and will not be overturned absent a manifest abuse of that discretion.
Facts:
- Silvio Deutor lived with his common-law wife, Anita Annunciation, and her four-year-old daughter, Ashley Annunciation.
- In the early morning of September 27, 1993, Deutor and Anita Annunciation began to argue.
- Anita Annunciation packed a suitcase and attempted to leave the apartment with Ashley, but Deutor forced them to return inside.
- Fearing Deutor, Anita Annunciation took Ashley into the bathroom and locked the door.
- Deutor kicked the bathroom door open, brandished a gun, and pushed both of them onto a bed.
- Deutor shot Ashley once and then shot Anita Annunciation six times until the gun was empty.
- When police officer Harry Parker arrived, Deutor initially claimed that a burglar had been in the residence.
- At the hospital, Anita Annunciation informed medical personnel that Deutor was the shooter, leading to his arrest.
Procedural Posture:
- Silvio Deutor was charged by bill of information with attempted first-degree murder of Ashley Annunciation (count one) and Anita Annunciation (count two).
- At a jury trial, Deutor was found not guilty on count one and guilty of the lesser charge of attempted second-degree murder on count two.
- Due to a clerical error, the trial court read and recorded the verdict as a conviction on count one and an acquittal on count two.
- The trial court adjudicated Deutor a third felony offender and sentenced him based on the erroneous conviction for count one.
- Deutor appealed, and the Louisiana Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, affirmed the conviction, also under the mistaken impression that the conviction was for count one.
- Deutor filed an application for post-conviction relief in the trial court, arguing his appeal was based on a flawed record.
- The trial court granted the application, corrected the record to reflect the conviction was on count two, and granted Deutor a new appeal to the Louisiana Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is a six-year-old child competent to testify at trial when she cannot abstractly define 'truth' and 'lie,' but can demonstrate a practical understanding of the concepts and her overall demeanor suggests she has a proper understanding?
Opinions:
Majority - Cannizzaro, Jr., J.
Yes, a six-year-old child is competent to testify under these circumstances because understanding, not age, is the determining factor for witness competency. The court explained that La. C.E. art. 601 requires only a 'proper understanding.' While the child, Ashley, could not define 'truth' or 'lie,' she demonstrated a concrete understanding by correctly identifying a deliberate falsehood by the judge (calling her pink dress blue) as a 'lie.' The court reasoned that a child's hesitant answers or unfamiliarity with the courtroom setting do not automatically indicate incompetency. Citing precedent like State v. Foy, the court emphasized that the trial judge is in the best position to observe the child's overall demeanor and that such determinations are given great weight and will not be disturbed absent a manifest abuse of discretion, which was not found here.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the significant deference appellate courts give to trial judges in determining the competency of child witnesses. It establishes that a functional, rather than academic, understanding of truth and falsity is sufficient for a child to be deemed competent. This lowers the bar for competency hearings, focusing on the child's demonstrated real-world understanding and overall demeanor rather than their ability to articulate abstract concepts. For future cases, this precedent means that challenges to a child's competency based solely on their inability to define terms like 'truth' or 'oath' are less likely to succeed if the record shows a practical grasp of these concepts.
