## Facts

- Leslie Capps was indicted in Fayette County for first-degree sodomy involving deviate sexual intercourse with a female child under 12.
- The complainant was five and one-half years old at the time of trial.
- Before the child testified, the trial judge conducted a competency voir dire of the child and of a Department of Child Services social worker who knew her.
- The social worker described the child as alert and able to relate to family members despite having no preschool education.
- The child gave answers showing familiarity with basic facts about her parents and community actors and demonstrated basic counting ability.
- The child showed an understanding of the difference between truth and lies and that lying carried consequences.
- The trial court ruled the child competent to testify.
- A jury convicted Capps of first-degree sodomy and set punishment at 30 years’ imprisonment.

## Issues

1. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by finding the five-and-a-half-year-old complainant competent to testify after a voir dire examination.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Kentucky affirmed the conviction and sentence.
- The court held the trial judge did not abuse discretion in finding the child competent to testify.
- The court treated defense complaints about coaching or the child’s performance on cross-examination as credibility matters for the jury, not competency defects requiring exclusion.

## Legal Principles

- When a child’s competency is challenged, the trial court must examine the witness to determine whether the child is sufficiently intelligent to observe, recollect, and narrate events and has a moral sense of the obligation to tell the truth.
- No fixed age determines competency; the inquiry is functional and fact-specific.
- A trial court’s competency ruling is reviewed for abuse of discretion.
- Once a witness is found competent, the weight and credibility of the testimony are for the jury to evaluate like any other witness’s testimony.

## Conclusion

The court upheld the conviction because the trial judge conducted an adequate competency examination and reasonably found the five-and-a-half-year-old complainant capable of observing, recalling, and relating facts and understanding the duty to tell the truth, leaving credibility disputes to the jury.


Capps v. Commonwealth, 560 S.W.2d 559 (Ky. 1977)