Commonwealth v. Waldron
339 N.E.2d 196, 3 Mass. App. Ct. 796, 1975 Mass. App. LEXIS 851
Opinion
We are satisfied that the trial judge’s determination of the competency of the complaining minor witness to testify was well warranted by the testimony in the voir dire on that subject. Commonwealth v. Tatisos, 238 Mass. 322, 325-326 (1921). Commonwealth v. Welcome, 348 Mass. 68, 70 (1964). Malchanoff v. Truehart, 354 Mass. 118, 120-122 (1968). Although no motion to strike her testimony was thereafter made, we observe nothing in that testimony which casts serious doubt on the correctness of the original determination.
Judgment affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Commonwealth v. Waldron, 339 N.E.2d 196, 3 Mass. App. Ct. 796, 1975 Mass. App. LEXIS 851 (Mass. Ct. App. 1975).
339 N.E.2d 196 (Commonwealth v. Waldron) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Malchanoff v. Truehart
236 N.E.2d 89 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1968)
Commonwealth v. Welcome
201 N.E.2d 827 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1964)
Commonwealth v. Tatisos
130 N.E. 495 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1921)