State v. David Bueso(074261), 137 A.3d 516

Victim M.C., age 5 at time of alleged abuse and 7 at trial, reported two incidents of sexual abuse by defendant, an adult who lived with the child’s babysitter. The State charged defendant with multiple sexual-assault and child-endangering counts.
Pretrial motions to dismiss and to suppress the child’s statements were denied. At trial the State conducted a competency colloquy of M.C. on the stand; the prosecutor used both leading and non‑leading questions and the judge asked one brief hypothetical about a book’s shape.
Defense counsel declined to object to the competency colloquy at trial. The court found M.C. competent and she testified; the jury convicted defendant on charges relating to the first alleged incident and acquitted him on counts tied to the second incident.
On appeal, defendant (for the first time) argued the trial court erred in finding M.C. competent because the judge had not personally conducted the bulk of the questioning and the prosecutor had used leading questions. The Appellate Division reversed for plain error, reasoning the judge must personally question the child to ascertain understanding of truth and consequences.
The New Jersey Supreme Court granted certification to resolve whether (1) the plain‑error standard applies when no timely objection is made to a competency ruling and (2) whether trial courts must personally conduct the child competency colloquy or prohibit leading questions by counsel.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Bueso)	Held
Standard of review when no objection to competency ruling	Failure to object waives challenge; no deviation from ordinary waiver rules	Plain error standard applies; challenge may be raised on appeal	Plain‑error review applies; failure to object does not bar appellate review
Who may conduct competency questioning of a child witness	Prosecutor may question; judge not required to do all questioning	Judge must personally question to ensure adequate inquiry and not delegate that duty	Trial judge need not personally ask every question; may permit counsel to question subject to court oversight
Use of leading questions in child competency colloquy	Leading questions are permissible and often necessary with children to elicit understanding	Leading questions can improperly prompt answers and undermine the inquiry	Leading questions are permissible at the judge’s discretion, with careful monitoring to ensure answers are the child’s own
Sufficiency of the colloquy with this child	Colloquy, though imperfect, showed child understood truth/lie and possible punishment; record minimally sufficient	Colloquy was inadequate and constituted plain error; record did not show moral appreciation of duty to tell truth	Colloquy was minimally sufficient under N.J.R.E. 601 and precedent; no plain error, but inquiry was below ideal and courts should develop fuller records

State v. R.R., 79 N.J. 97 (N.J. 1979) (establishes test for child witness competence: understands difference between truth and lies, that truth is right, and that lies may bring punishment)
State v. G.C., 188 N.J. 118 (N.J. 2006) (applies R.R. standard to child sexual‑abuse victim and affirms flexible oath/colloquy requirement)
State v. Smith, 158 N.J. 376 (N.J. 1999) (recognizes permissibility of leading questions to facilitate examination of reluctant child witnesses)
State v. Zamorsky, 170 N.J. Super. 198 (App. Div. 1979) (discusses two‑step inquiry for child competency and remand following earlier decisions)