Ricketts v. State
Delaware Supreme Court
488 A.2d 856 (1985)
- Written by Christine Raino, JD
Facts
Darrell Ricketts (defendant) was indicted for first-degree rape of a five-year-old girl, the daughter of a woman he was dating. At trial, the State of Delaware (State) (plaintiff) offered the testimony of the child victim who was then six years old. Before introducing the child victim’s testimony, the State conducted a voir dire. During voir dire, the child stated that she understood what a lie was, that telling a lie may result in getting a spanking and that it was a bad thing to tell a lie and she promised to tell the truth during her testimony. The court determined that the child witness did not understand the meaning of perjury but allowed her to testify because she met the only test for competency—understanding the difference between truth and falsehood. Ricketts was convicted and appealed his conviction, claiming that the trial court erred in allowing the testimony of the child victim because she was not competent to testify under Delaware Rules of Evidence (DRE) 601 and 603.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Moore, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 810,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
