Facts: Defendant was charged with the crime
of rape of a deaf and dumb girl. Sasota, found guilty of the crime
because of the victim’s testimony, now posits that the testimony of the deaf
and dumb should not have been accepted by the court at its full value.
Issue: Whether or not a deaf and dumb person
is considered a competent witness by the court.
Held: There is no
merit in the contention of the defendant that deaf and dumb persons are to be
considered incompetent witnesses. Though formerly, deaf and dump persons
were considered incompetent, experience and observation have shown conclusively
that the mere fact that a person is deaf and dumb is not sufficient to justify
the finding that he is incompetent as a witness. When such a witness is
produced, the court may ascertain whether he has the requisite intelligence,
and the judge will allow the witness to adopt such mode of communicating his
ideas, whether by signs or writing as he deems most satisfactory.
No comments:
Post a Comment