State v. J.H.

When determining witness competency under OEC 601, “[t]he proper inquiry is not whether the person is able to perceive and communicate in any capacity, but rather ‘whether [the] person has sufficient ability to perceive, recollect, and communicate so it is worthwhile for the person to testify.’” State v. Sarich, 352 Or 601, 616, 291 P3d 647 (2012).

Youth appealed a juvenile court’s finding. Youth assigned error to the court’s ruling that T was competent to testify. T was four-years-old at the time of the hearing and was the alleged victim of Youth’s sexual conduct. The prosecutor articulated the witness competency standard as determining solely whether T was able to perceive and communicate in any capacity. When determining witness competency under OEC 601, “[t]he proper inquiry is not whether the person is able to perceive and communicate in any capacity, but rather ‘whether [the] person has sufficient ability to perceive, recollect, and communicate so it is worthwhile for the person to testify.’” State v. Sarich, 352 Or 601, 616, 291 P3d 647 (2012). The Court reasoned that, because the juvenile court adopted the prosecutor’s articulation of the standard, the juvenile court did not correctly determine T’s ability to perceive and communicate. The Court reasoned that this was evidenced when the juvenile court explained, “I think [the prosecutor] is correct that as long as the witness can communicate factual matters as they understand them” and tell the truth, that is sufficient. Thus, the Court held that the juvenile court did not apply the correct legal standard. REVERSED AND REMANDED.