ARK.] GUTHRIE V. STATE. 1081 GUTHRIE V. STATE. Criminal 3876 Opinion delivered March 12, 1934. WI TNESS-COMPETENCY-DISCRETION OF couRT.—Where a negro boy 15 years old testified on cross-examination that he didn't know what it was to tell the truth, didn't know what an oath was, nor what would happen to him if he testified falsely, but on re-examination'stated that he did understand the nature of an oath, held that the matter of his qualification as a . witness rested in the court's discretion. Appeal from Phillips Circuit Court; W. D. Daven7 port, Judge; affirmed. John C. Sheffield, L. L. Harris and Brickell Douglas, for appellant. Hal L. Norwood, Attorney Geheral, and Robert F. Smith, Assistant, for appellee. MCHANEY, J. Appellant was cohvicted of murder in the second degree, and sentenced to twelve years in the penitentiary for the killing of Bryant Graves on October 1, 1933. The only assignment of error relied upon for a reVersal of the judgment is that a ihaterial witness for the Stafe, Willie Heriod, a negro boy 15- years of age, was disqualified by reaSon of his inability to appreciate the sanctity of an oath. After the witness had testified to facts very damaging to appellant, on cross-examination he testified that lie didn't know what it .was to tell the truth, didn't know what an Oath was, nor what would happen to him if he testified falsely. The court overruled a motion to exclude his testimony from the jury. After a short recess of court, and after talking with the
State's attorney, the witness was again examined, and stated that he did understand the nature of an oath. • We think the matter of his qualification as a witness rested in the sound discretion of the . court. Payne .v. State, 177 Ark. 413, 6 S. W. (2d) 832 ; Y other v. State, 167 Ark. 492, 268 S. W. 861 ; Sanders v. State,175 Ark. 61, 296 S. W. 70 ; Durham v. State, 179 Ark. 508, 16 S. W. (2d) 991.. Affirmed.
You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.