Yes. California has no minimum witness age. Evidence Code section 700 generally qualifies every person to testify regardless of age. A judge can disqualify a child under the specific competency tests in section 701, and testimony about a particular event also needs a personal-knowledge foundation under section 702. If the child is qualified and has that foundation, uncertainty or inconsistency usually affects how jurors assess the testimony rather than imposing an automatic bar.
The judge decides the section 701 competency question
Evidence Code section 701(a) disqualifies a person who cannot communicate understandably about the matter, even with interpretation by someone who can understand them, or who cannot understand a witness’s duty to tell the truth. The judge evaluates those abilities, not whether the judge believes the child’s account of the charged event. Under People v. Anderson, the party challenging competence bears the burden of showing the statutory disqualification.
An age-appropriate inquiry may ask what it means to tell the truth and whether the child can communicate answers that can be understood. The law does not require an adult vocabulary, perfect chronology, or a particular memorized phrase. Section 701(b) permits a court, in a proceeding outside the jury’s presence, to reserve a competency challenge until direct examination ends; it does not mandate that every child witness receive a separate hearing. Preserve the exact questions, answers, interpretation issues, and ruling rather than relying on a summary that the child “seemed too young.”
Personal knowledge is a different foundation
Section 702 addresses whether a witness has personal knowledge of a particular matter. If a party objects, that foundation must be shown before the witness testifies about it, using otherwise admissible evidence, including the child’s own testimony. A child might be able to communicate and understand truth but lack firsthand knowledge of a detail learned only from someone else. Ask what the child actually saw, heard, or experienced, and distinguish those facts from later conversations or guesses.
In People v. Sanchez, the California Supreme Court treated a young witness’s ability to answer truth-duty questions separately from disputes about memory, therapy, and inconsistent accounts. Those disputes can be important subjects for a fair trial, but they do not automatically establish section 701 incompetence. The judge decides threshold competency and admissibility; the jury ordinarily assesses the credibility and accuracy of admitted testimony.
Preserve a focused record without contacting the child
Counsel can compare the child’s recorded statements, interview methods, relevant timing, claimed sources of knowledge, and testimony. Identify a specific communication, truth-duty, or personal-knowledge issue rather than arguing from age alone. Do not coach, contact, or question a child or protected witness yourself. Whether an earlier out-of-court statement is admissible, or whether testimony may occur remotely, presents separate rules from live-witness competency.
For the charged-offense context, see the Law Offices of David S. Chesley’s child-molestation defense page. To discuss a witness ruling and the record, call (800) 755-5174.