ON CRIMINAL PETITION TO TRANSFER
Defendant’s multiple convictions were affirmed by the Court of Appeals.
Duffitt v. State
(1988), Ind.App.,
We grant transfer to express disapproval of this practice. Such decorations unduly emphasize the testimony of one witness over another and may convey to some jurors that the testimony of young children is more important or more credible than that of others. Testimony of children under ten years of age is permissible only upon an express finding by the trial court that the child understands the nature and obligation of an oath. Ind.Code § 34-1-14-5;
LeMaster v. State
(1986), Ind.,
Notwithstanding these observations, which are prospective in operation, we agree with the Court of Appeals that, in the totality of the circumstances of the present case, reversal is not warranted on this issue.
In all other respects, the decision of the Court of Appeals is summarily affirmed pursuant to Appellate Rule 11(B)(3). The trial court judgment is affirmed.
Notes
.
See, e.g.,
Ind.Code §§ 35-37-4-6, 8 as upheld and limited in
Miller v. State
(1987), Ind.,
