In a criminal trial, the prosecution seeks to call a 9-year-old child to testify about witnessing the defendant at the scene of the crime. The child provides a detailed account of what they saw and heard. Which of the following best evaluates the child's qualifications as a competent witness?
The child's prior statements to their parents classify their testimony as hearsay and inadmissible.
The child's testimony is admissible provided they have personal knowledge of the event and understand the obligation to testify truthfully.
The child's testimony is admitted alongside corroboration from another witness.
The child's testimony is excluded based on their age and competence to testify.
The child's testimony is admissible because they have personal knowledge of the event and are capable of understanding the duty to testify truthfully. The child's age alone does not render them incompetent.
Ask Bash
Bash is our AI bot, trained to help you pass your exam. AI Generated Content may display inaccurate information, always double-check anything important.
What does it mean for a witness to have personal knowledge of an event?
Open an interactive chat with Bash
What does it mean for a witness to understand the obligation to testify truthfully?
Open an interactive chat with Bash
Why might a child's testimony be admitted even if they are young?