590 So. 2d 383 | Ala. | 1991
Concurrence Opinion
(concurring in the result.)
I concur in the Court’s refusal to review the judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals, because the Court of Criminal Appeals correctly held that the provisions of Ala.Code 1975, § 15-25-3(c), which state that “a child victim of sexual abuse or sexual exploitation” shall be a competent witness, apply only to a case of sexual abuse or exploitation of a child and not to a case of physical abuse of a child, the charge in this case.
The Court of Criminal Appeals, in its opinion, suggested “that the legislature [should] consider amending the statute regarding victims of child abuse,” and I agree with that court’s conclusion that there is no logical reason why a child victim should not be a competent witness in a physical abuse case just as in a case involving sexual abuse or exploitation. I write this special concurrence to suggest that this Court could, without waiting for the legislature to act, adopt a rule of criminal procedure and effect the change.
The legislature had, before the adoption of Amendment 328 granting to this Court rule-making power, adopted several statutes relating to “evidence and witnesses.”
Because this Court has not adopted a rule of practice governing the competency of a child to testify in a case involving physical abuse, I concur in the result reached here, but I would suggest that Rule 19.2, Ala.R.Crim.P., which deals with “evidence and witnesses” in criminal cases, could be amended to provide that a child victim would be competent to testify in a physical abuse case.
STEAGALL and INGRAM, JJ., concur.
. Several of these statutes are collected in Title 12, Chapter 21. Ala.Code 1975, §§ 12-21-1 through 12-21-285.
. Amendment 328, Sec. 6.11, does provide that any rule adopted by the Court "may be changed by a general act of statewide application."
Lead Opinion
WRIT DENIED.