ARK.] 461
CHARLES PERRYMAN V. STATE 5234 414 S. W. 2d 91
Opinion delivered May 1, 1967 1_ OBSCENITY—INDECENT ExPOSURE—wEIGHT & SUFFICIENCY OF EvIDENCE.—Testimony of prosecutrix and another hig h school student who was present when the incident occurred held sufficient to support the verdict finding accused guilty of indecent exposure. [Ark. Stat. Ann. § 41-1127 and -1129.] 2. CRIMINAL LAW—WITNESSES, COMPETENCY OF MINORS AS—DISCRETION OF TRIAL COURT.—In criminal cases trial judge is given wide discretion in determining competency of a minor as witness and no abuse of discretion was shown in allowing 15-year-old prosecutrix to testify where record suggested no basis for questioning her competency. 3. CRIMINAL LAW—COURSE & CONDUCT OF TRIAL—RECEPTION OF EVIDENCE.—Trial court's refusal to permit defense counsel to delay his opening statement to jury until State had rested itS ease was not error. Appeal from Washington (lire:114 flourt, Cvnimings, Judge ; affirmed. No brief for appellant. Joe Purcell, Attorney General ; Don Langston, Asst. Atty. General, for appellee. GEORGE ROSE SMITH, Justice. The appellant was convicted of having indecently exposed himself to a girl under the age of sixteen. Ark. Stat. Ann. §§ 41- 1127 and -1129 (Repl. 1964). The jury fixed his punishment at imprisonment for six months. The testimony of the prosecuting witness and of another high school student who was present when the incident occurred was amply sufficient to support the verdict, The court did not err in allowing the fifteen-year-old prosecutrix to testify. In criminal cases the trial judge is given wide discretion in determining the competency of a minor as a witness. Harris v. State, 238 Ark. 780. 384 S. W. 2d 477 (1964). There was no abuse of discretion here. Quite the opposite, the record suggests no basis for
462 [94° questioning the competency of this witness. Nor did the court err in refusing to permit defense counsel to delay his opening statement to the jury until the State had rested its case. That exact point was decided in MeDan-iels v_ State, 187 Ark. 1163 (mem.), 63 S. W. 2d 335 (1933). 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.