BRANCH, Chief Justice.
Defendant assigns as error the trial judge’s denial of his pretrial motion that the prosecutrix, Donna Safrit, be ordered to undergo a psychiatric examination.
[118]*118Defendant’s pretrial motion for a psychiatric examination was aimed toward determining the prosecutrix’s competence and reliability as a witness.1
After his motion for a psychiatric examination was denied, defendant by a trial motion sought to have the prosecutrix’s testimony suppressed. In support of this motion, defendant offered the testimony of Dr. Peter Crombes. Dr. Crombes, a clinical psychologist, testified at the pretrial hearing that on 9 August 1979, six months before the alleged rape and nine months before the trial, he tested Ms. Safrit in conjunction with her application to the North Carolina Department of Vocational Rehabilitation. Dr. Crombes gave several psychological tests to Ms. Safrit in order to evaluate her employment ability and provide recommendations as to the most suitable way in which to assist her in obtaining employment. Dr. Crombes’ psychological examination revealed that Ms. Safrit had a tendency to project blame onto others and was afraid of men believing them to be people who “come to get you or hurt you, rape you;” however, he also testified that:
Basically she has sufficient understanding to be capable of giving a correct account as to what she’s seen or heard with respect to a question at issue. She is capable of giving a correct account as to what she’s seen or heard, to the extent that she can accurately remember details and so on which is limited by her ability to understand and remember. She would be capable of giving a correct account of what she has seen or heard. She has sufficient understanding to com[119]*119prehend the obligations of an oath to tell the truth. In my professional opinion Donna Safrit does have sufficient understanding to comprehend the meaning of an oath to tell the truth. In my opinion she has sufficient mental ability to understand and relate under oath the facts which she has observed as will assist the jury in determining the truth of what happened in the incident wherein the defendant is charged here in Court.
In addition to the testimony of Dr. Crombes, the trial judge heard testimony from the prosecuting witness and considered an affidavit executed by defendant’s attorney. At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial judge found facts consistent with the evidence before him and concluded:
(a) That the witness, Donna Safrit has the capacity to understand and to relate under the obligation of an oath facts which will assist the jury in determining the truth with respect to the ultimate facts which it will be called upon to decide in this case, and,
(b) That the witness, Donna Safrit, is a competent witness.
The majority in the Court of Appeals, relying upon our case of State v. Looney, 294 N.C. 1, 240 S.E. 2d 612 (1978), found no error in the trial judge’s denial of defendant’s motion for a compulsory psychiatric examination of the prosecuting witness. Judge Becton, in his dissent, took the position that the opinion in Looney was inconclusive and was distinguishable from instant case. He espoused the view taken by Justice Exum in his concurring opinion in Looney.
In Looney Justice Lake, speaking for the Court, after extensive review of the decisions from other jurisdictions, in part, stated:
To hold that a trial court in this State may require a witness, against his will, to subject himself to a psychiatric examination, as a condition to his or her being permitted to testify, is also a serious handicap to the State in the prosecution of criminal offenses. If the witness simply refuses, there may well be nothing the prosecuting attorney can do to induce the witness to comply with the order. In many instances, a material witness for the State is none too eager to testify under any circumstances. To permit the defendant to [120]*120obtain a court order, directing him or her to submit to a psychiatric examination as a condition precedent to his testifying, may well further chill his or her enthusiasm for taking the stand or at least give him a way out of doing so. In many cases, there would be no insurmountable difficulty in the way of a hard-pressed defendant’s obtaining such an order and bringing this escape route to the attention of the witness.
In our opinion, the possible benefits to an innocent defendant, flowing from such a court ordered examination of the witness, are outweighed by the resulting invasion of the witness’ right to privacy and the danger to the public interest from discouraging victims of crime to report such offenses and other potential witnesses from disclosing their knowledge of them.
We think that so drastic a change in the criminal trial procedure of this State, if needed, should be brought about, as was done in Massachusetts, by a carefully considered and drafted statute, not by our pronouncement leaving the matter to the unguided discretion of the trial judge.
294 N.C. at 28, 240 S.E. 2d at 627.
Justice Exum, concurring, concluded that “our trial judges have the power, to be carefully used in the exercise of their sound discretion, to order in appropriate circumstances the psychiatric examination of any witness as a condition to receiving the testimony of that witness.” 294 N.C. at 29, 240 S.E. 2d at 628.
It is well established in this jurisdiction that the competency of a witness is a matter for the trial judge and is not reviewable absent a clear showing of abuse of discretion or when the ruling is based upon a misapprehension of the law. 1 Stansbury’s N.C. Evidence § 55 at 160-63 (Brandis Rev. 1973); State v. Cooke, 278 N.C. 288, 179 S.E. 2d 365 (1971). The credibility of the evidence is a matter for the jury. State v. Squires, 272 N.C. 402, 158 S.E. 2d 345 (1968). In connection with this division of power, we reiterate with approval the observations of Judge Duniway in United States v. Barnard, 490 F. 2d 907, 912-13 (9th Cir. 1973), cert. denied, 416 U.S. 959, 40 L.Ed. 2d 310, 94 S.Ct. 1976 (1974), concerning the possible effect of psychiatric testimony upon the trial of a case, as previously quoted by Justice Lake in Looney, to wit:
[121]*121As we have seen, competency [of a witness] is for the judge, not the jury. Credibility, however, is for the jury — the jury is the lie detector in the courtroom.* * * It is now suggested that psychiatrists and psychologists have more of this expertise than either judges or juries, and that their opinions can be of value to both judges and juries in determining the veracity of witnesses. Perhaps. The effect of receiving such testimony, however, may be two-fold: first, it may cause juries to surrender their own common sense in weighing testimony; second, it may produce a trial within a trial on what is a collateral, but still an important matter. For these reasons we, like other courts that have considered the matter, are unwilling to say that when such testimony is offered, the judge must admit it.
294 N.C. at 26, 240 S.E. 2d 626.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
BRANCH, Chief Justice.
Defendant assigns as error the trial judge’s denial of his pretrial motion that the prosecutrix, Donna Safrit, be ordered to undergo a psychiatric examination.
[118]*118Defendant’s pretrial motion for a psychiatric examination was aimed toward determining the prosecutrix’s competence and reliability as a witness.1
After his motion for a psychiatric examination was denied, defendant by a trial motion sought to have the prosecutrix’s testimony suppressed. In support of this motion, defendant offered the testimony of Dr. Peter Crombes. Dr. Crombes, a clinical psychologist, testified at the pretrial hearing that on 9 August 1979, six months before the alleged rape and nine months before the trial, he tested Ms. Safrit in conjunction with her application to the North Carolina Department of Vocational Rehabilitation. Dr. Crombes gave several psychological tests to Ms. Safrit in order to evaluate her employment ability and provide recommendations as to the most suitable way in which to assist her in obtaining employment. Dr. Crombes’ psychological examination revealed that Ms. Safrit had a tendency to project blame onto others and was afraid of men believing them to be people who “come to get you or hurt you, rape you;” however, he also testified that:
Basically she has sufficient understanding to be capable of giving a correct account as to what she’s seen or heard with respect to a question at issue. She is capable of giving a correct account as to what she’s seen or heard, to the extent that she can accurately remember details and so on which is limited by her ability to understand and remember. She would be capable of giving a correct account of what she has seen or heard. She has sufficient understanding to com[119]*119prehend the obligations of an oath to tell the truth. In my professional opinion Donna Safrit does have sufficient understanding to comprehend the meaning of an oath to tell the truth. In my opinion she has sufficient mental ability to understand and relate under oath the facts which she has observed as will assist the jury in determining the truth of what happened in the incident wherein the defendant is charged here in Court.
In addition to the testimony of Dr. Crombes, the trial judge heard testimony from the prosecuting witness and considered an affidavit executed by defendant’s attorney. At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial judge found facts consistent with the evidence before him and concluded:
(a) That the witness, Donna Safrit has the capacity to understand and to relate under the obligation of an oath facts which will assist the jury in determining the truth with respect to the ultimate facts which it will be called upon to decide in this case, and,
(b) That the witness, Donna Safrit, is a competent witness.
The majority in the Court of Appeals, relying upon our case of State v. Looney, 294 N.C. 1, 240 S.E. 2d 612 (1978), found no error in the trial judge’s denial of defendant’s motion for a compulsory psychiatric examination of the prosecuting witness. Judge Becton, in his dissent, took the position that the opinion in Looney was inconclusive and was distinguishable from instant case. He espoused the view taken by Justice Exum in his concurring opinion in Looney.
In Looney Justice Lake, speaking for the Court, after extensive review of the decisions from other jurisdictions, in part, stated:
To hold that a trial court in this State may require a witness, against his will, to subject himself to a psychiatric examination, as a condition to his or her being permitted to testify, is also a serious handicap to the State in the prosecution of criminal offenses. If the witness simply refuses, there may well be nothing the prosecuting attorney can do to induce the witness to comply with the order. In many instances, a material witness for the State is none too eager to testify under any circumstances. To permit the defendant to [120]*120obtain a court order, directing him or her to submit to a psychiatric examination as a condition precedent to his testifying, may well further chill his or her enthusiasm for taking the stand or at least give him a way out of doing so. In many cases, there would be no insurmountable difficulty in the way of a hard-pressed defendant’s obtaining such an order and bringing this escape route to the attention of the witness.
In our opinion, the possible benefits to an innocent defendant, flowing from such a court ordered examination of the witness, are outweighed by the resulting invasion of the witness’ right to privacy and the danger to the public interest from discouraging victims of crime to report such offenses and other potential witnesses from disclosing their knowledge of them.
We think that so drastic a change in the criminal trial procedure of this State, if needed, should be brought about, as was done in Massachusetts, by a carefully considered and drafted statute, not by our pronouncement leaving the matter to the unguided discretion of the trial judge.
294 N.C. at 28, 240 S.E. 2d at 627.
Justice Exum, concurring, concluded that “our trial judges have the power, to be carefully used in the exercise of their sound discretion, to order in appropriate circumstances the psychiatric examination of any witness as a condition to receiving the testimony of that witness.” 294 N.C. at 29, 240 S.E. 2d at 628.
It is well established in this jurisdiction that the competency of a witness is a matter for the trial judge and is not reviewable absent a clear showing of abuse of discretion or when the ruling is based upon a misapprehension of the law. 1 Stansbury’s N.C. Evidence § 55 at 160-63 (Brandis Rev. 1973); State v. Cooke, 278 N.C. 288, 179 S.E. 2d 365 (1971). The credibility of the evidence is a matter for the jury. State v. Squires, 272 N.C. 402, 158 S.E. 2d 345 (1968). In connection with this division of power, we reiterate with approval the observations of Judge Duniway in United States v. Barnard, 490 F. 2d 907, 912-13 (9th Cir. 1973), cert. denied, 416 U.S. 959, 40 L.Ed. 2d 310, 94 S.Ct. 1976 (1974), concerning the possible effect of psychiatric testimony upon the trial of a case, as previously quoted by Justice Lake in Looney, to wit:
[121]*121As we have seen, competency [of a witness] is for the judge, not the jury. Credibility, however, is for the jury — the jury is the lie detector in the courtroom.* * * It is now suggested that psychiatrists and psychologists have more of this expertise than either judges or juries, and that their opinions can be of value to both judges and juries in determining the veracity of witnesses. Perhaps. The effect of receiving such testimony, however, may be two-fold: first, it may cause juries to surrender their own common sense in weighing testimony; second, it may produce a trial within a trial on what is a collateral, but still an important matter. For these reasons we, like other courts that have considered the matter, are unwilling to say that when such testimony is offered, the judge must admit it.
294 N.C. at 26, 240 S.E. 2d 626.
We are aware that many jurisdictions have adopted the view that a trial judge may in his discretion order an unwilling pros-ecutrix in a sex offense case to submit to psychiatric examination. See State v. Jerousek, 121 Ariz. 420, 590 P. 2d 1366 (1979); Thompson v. State, 399 A. 2d 194 (Del. 1979); State v. Filson, 101 Idaho 381, 613 P. 2d 938 (1980); State v. Gregg, 226 Kan. 481, 602 P. 2d 85 (1979); Washington v. State, 608 P. 2d 1101 (Nev. 1980); State v. Boisvert, 119 N.H. 174, 400 A. 2d 48 (1979); State v. Romero, 94 N.M. 22, 606 P. 2d 1116 (1980); and State v. Demos, 94 Wash. 2d 733, 619 P. 2d 968 (1980). The most extreme view that we find in our research is Dean Wigmore’s statement that:
No judge should ever let a sex offense charge go to the jury unless the female complainant’s social history and mental makeup have been examined and testified to be a qualified physician.
3A Wigmore, Evidence § 924a (Chadbourn rev. 1970). See also, McCormick, Handbook of the Law of Evidence § 45 at 95-96 (2d Ed. 1972). We reject this view without discussion. However, we agree with Dean Wigmore’s recognition that a rule requiring any complaining witness in a sex offense case to undergo a psychiatric examination to determine her competency or credibility would require a legislative mandate. 3A Wigmore, Evidence § 924B at 747-48 (Chadbourn rev. 1970). This view is in accord with the holding in Looney. See also People v. Lewis, 25 Ill. 2d 442, 185 [122]*122N.E. 2d 254 (1962); Wedmore v. State, 237 Ind. 212, 143 N.E. 2d 649 (1957); Commonwealth v. Gibbons, 393 N.E. 2d 400 (Mass. 1979); State v. Walgraeve, 243 Or. 328, 412 P. 2d 23 (1966). We have no such legislative mandate in North Carolina. The Court in Looney noted that if there be such a drastic change as would permit a court-ordered psychiatric examination, it should be done by carefully considered and drafted legislation. The legislature has not seen fit to follow that course. Just prior to Looney the legislature enacted G.S. 8-58.6 commonly known as “the Rape Victim Shield Law.”2 Enactment of this law amounted to a declara[123]*123tion by the legislature that it is the policy of this State to prevent unnecessary intrusion into the privacy of victims of sex crimes which are irrelevant to the prosecution of an individual charged with such crimes. Should we recede from our holding in Looney we would be acting contrary to this announced public policy.
To order the victim of a sex crime to unwillingly submit to a psychiatric examination would result in a profound invasion of her privacy which, in our opinion, would deter innocent victims of such crimes from ever making complaints. This conclusion is not without foundation. Indeed, as Justice Carlton pointed out in State v. Fortney, 301 N.C. 31, 269 S.E. 2d 110 (1980):
Rape is one of the most underreported of crimes. Estimates are that from 3 V2, President’s Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice, The Challenges of Crimes in a Free Society 21-22 (1967) to 20, Berger, supra at 5, times the number of rapes reported actually occur. Only 60% of those arrested are charged and conviction rates for those charged are low compared to other crimes, Berger, supra at 6 (35% for rape as compared to 70% for other crimes). See also National Institute of Law Enforcement, U.S. Department of Justice, Forcible Rape: An Analysis of Legal Issues 3 (1978) (3% of 635 rape complaints in the sample resulted in convictions of rape or some lesser crime). Part of the reluctance of victims to report and prosecute rape stems from their feeling that the legal system harasses and humiliates them.
Id. at 42, 269 S.E. 2d at 116. (Emphasis added.)
For reasons here stated, we adopt the rationale of Looney and hold that a trial judge does not have the discretionary power [124]*124to compel an unwilling witness to submit to a psychiatric examination.
The decision of the Court of Appeals is
Affirmed.