## Facts

- Allen J., a 15-year-old Indian juvenile, and the 12-year-old victim, also Indian, were cousins living on or near the Navajo Nation Reservation near Shiprock, New Mexico.
- After a family celebration on May 29, 1996, the victim encountered Allen J. while walking between nearby houses.
- The district court found Allen J. grabbed the victim by the wrist, forced her to an abandoned car, and used force to engage in a sex act.
- Federal jurisdiction applied because the offense occurred in Indian country and involved Indian parties; the charged conduct fell within federal aggravated sexual abuse provisions.
- Following a bench trial in the District of New Mexico, the court adjudicated Allen J. a juvenile delinquent for aggravated sexual abuse under 18 U.S.C. §§ 2241(a), 2246(2)(A), and placed him on probation until age 21 with treatment conditions.
- Before the victim’s substantive testimony, the prosecutor asked brief questions concerning her understanding of truth versus lies and the consequences of lying; the judge allowed her to testify without a separate competency hearing.
- During testimony, the victim at times struggled to answer questions and gave some incorrect answers (including about her age); the defense cited these problems and reports of developmental limitations to request a competency examination, which the court denied.

## Issues

1. Whether the district court abused its discretion by permitting the 12-year-old victim to testify without ordering a separate competency examination or hearing, given claimed cognitive and developmental limitations.

## Decision

- The Tenth Circuit affirmed the adjudication of juvenile delinquency.
- The court held the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding the victim competent to testify and in denying a separate competency examination.
- The court treated the defense objections as attacking the victim’s credibility and reliability, matters for cross-examination and fact-finder assessment, rather than threshold competency.

## Legal Principles

- Federal Rule of Evidence 601 establishes a broad presumption that every person is competent to be a witness unless a specific rule provides otherwise.
- The party challenging competency bears the burden to show a substantial basis for finding the witness lacks the minimal capacity to testify truthfully and meaningfully.
- Trial courts have broad discretion in competency determinations; appellate review is for abuse of discretion, reflecting the trial judge’s superior ability to observe the witness.
- A child witness is not rendered incompetent solely by youth, developmental delay, learning disabilities, inconsistent answers, or difficulty with some questions; such matters generally bear on credibility and weight, not admissibility.
- A limited preliminary inquiry into understanding truthfulness and the duty to tell the truth may be sufficient; a separate competency hearing is not required absent an adequate showing.

## Conclusion

The Tenth Circuit upheld the district court’s admission of the child victim’s testimony, ruling that Rule 601 presumes competency and that the defense did not overcome that presumption; the claimed developmental limitations and inconsistencies were primarily credibility issues for the fact-finder rather than grounds to exclude the testimony or require a separate competency examination.


United States v. Allen J., 127 F.3d 1292 (10th Cir. 1997)