State v. J. H., 533 P.3d 363

Youth (appellant) babysat his three-year-old cousin T in summer 2019; T later told parents that youth sexually abused him and the state filed a juvenile petition alleging first-degree sexual offenses.
At the October 2020 jurisdictional hearing the court held an OEC 104 inquiry into T’s competency; T was four years old at the hearing and was repeatedly distracted, sang intermittently, and gave inconsistent or inaudible answers.
The prosecutor urged a liberal, low threshold for competency—focusing on whether T could generally perceive and articulate—not whether he could recount the specific events at issue.
The juvenile court adopted that framing, found T competent under OEC 601, and proceeded; the court subsequently found youth within the court’s jurisdiction.
On appeal the Court of Appeals held the juvenile court applied the wrong legal standard under OEC 601 because it did not determine whether T had sufficient ability to perceive, recollect, and communicate about the events relevant to the jurisdictional issues (events occurring over a year earlier), and the error was not harmless.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the juvenile court applied the correct legal standard under OEC 601 in finding a 4‑year‑old witness competent	J.H.: Trial court erred—court only assessed general ability to perceive/communicate and failed to assess ability to perceive/recollect/communicate about the relevant events	State: OEC 601 is a very liberal, low standard; witness need only perceive things and articulate them generally; inaccuracies go to credibility	Reversed: court applied incorrect standard; must assess whether witness can perceive, recollect, and communicate about issues to be decided (Sarich standard)
Whether the competency error was harmless	J.H.: Error not harmless because T’s testimony was central and the court relied on it for jurisdictional findings	State: T’s testimony was minimal and distractible but competency threshold is low (argued error should not require reversal)	Not harmless: error affected rights; reversal and remand for new proceedings

State v. Sarich, 291 P.3d 647 (Or. 2012) (OEC 601 requires inquiry into whether witness has sufficient ability to perceive, recollect, and communicate about issues to be decided)
State v. Milbradt, 756 P.2d 620 (Or. 1988) (competency is liberal; weight and credibility are for the factfinder)
State v. Lawson, 291 P.3d 673 (Or. 2012) (proponent must prove preliminary facts, including competency, by a preponderance of the evidence)
State v. Rogers, 4 P.3d 1261 (Or. 2000) (legal standard for competency reviewed de novo)
State v. Davis, 77 P.3d 1111 (Or. 2003) (harmless-error standard under Oregon constitutional review)