Wooten v. State, 494 S.W.3d 434

Adrian Wooten was convicted by a Howard County jury of rape and aggravated residential burglary (trial Nov. 19, 2014) and sentenced to consecutive terms totaling 100 years.
The victim, M.H., was eighty-nine and challenged by Wooten as incompetent to testify; a pretrial competency hearing was held outside the jury’s presence.
At the hearing M.H. testified about the August 9, 2013 attack: a pillow was placed over her face, she was taken to a pond, raped, prayed because she could not swim, and later saw police; she equivocated about the attacker’s race, citing darkness and confusion.
The trial court found M.H. competent to testify, and she later gave similar substantive testimony before the jury about entry through a window, demands for money, the struggle, the pond, and being taken to the hospital.
Wooten moved for a new trial (deemed denied), appealed solely arguing the trial court abused its discretion by allowing M.H. to testify despite alleged memory and communication deficits.

Issue	Wooten's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court erred in finding an elderly victim competent to testify	M.H. lacked ability to accurately remember and transmit events (used qualifiers like “thinks,” was confused and “really tired”), so she was incompetent under Ark. R. Evid. 601	Competency is within the trial court’s discretion; M.H. demonstrated ability to receive, retain, and relate impressions sufficient to testify	Trial court did not abuse discretion; M.H. was competent and her testimony was admissible

Warner v. State, 93 Ark. App. 233, 218 S.W.3d 330 (discusses presumption of competency and criteria for establishing witness competency)
Ward v. State, 439 S.W.3d 56 (Ark. App. 2014) (explains competency standards: oath awareness, consequences of false swearing, and ability to transmit impressions)