A Spaulding County jury found Larry Wilson guilty of sexual assault and aggravated sodomy, which charges arose in relation to acts Wilson perpetrated against a nursing home patient in Wilson’s care. He appeals, claiming error in the trial court’s conclusion that the victim was competent to testify at trial and challenging the sufficiency of the evidence against him. Upon review of the record, we find as follows. 1. The victim in this case, R. C., is a mentally and physically disabled adult who resides at the Sunbridge Care and Rehabilitation Center. Pursuant to a defense motion, the trial court held a competency hearing prior to R. C.’s trial testimony. The court established that R. C. knew the difference between the truth and a lie. R. C. stated that it was good to tell the truth and bad to tell a lie; he further stated that he could and would tell the truth. The court found him competent to testify. Thereafter, R. C. expressly identified “Larry” Wilson as the man who hurt him when “he stick it penis in me.” Wilson assigns error to the trial court’s competency finding.
The rights of citizens include the right to testify as a witness.1 This right may be limited by the state legislature for a legitimate purpose, such as the protection of the fact-finding process. Our competency statute is one such protective limitation.2 It requires that the witness “be sensible of the obligation to tell the truth. Cit.”3 In that regard, “the trial court’s determination of competency will not be disturbed absent abuse of discretion.”4 Here, we find no abuse of the court’s discretion. While Wilson directs our attention to the disability accommodations that had to be made in order to secure R. C.’s testimony and the obvious limitations in R. C.’s ability to communicate, the record shows that R. C. understood his responsibility to tell the truth. Accordingly, he was competent to testify. Subsequently, R. C.’s testimony showed that he clearly knew what had happened to him and knew who had done it; with aid, he communicated these facts to the jury. While the court passes upon the competency of a witness, the jury passes upon his credibility.5 Wilson’s conviction speaks to the jury’s credibility findings.
