Code of Alabama
Ala. Code § 12-21-165 (2026)
Incompetent Witnesses.
✓ official Alabama Legislature (ALISON) text, current July 2026
(a) Persons who have not the use of reason, such as idiots, lunatics during lunacy and children who do not understand the nature of an oath, are incompetent witnesses.
(b) The court must, by examination, decide upon the capacity of one alleged to be incompetent from idiocy, lunacy, insanity, drunkenness or infancy.
(Code 1907, §§4013, 4014; Code 1923, §§7727, 7728; Code 1940, T. 7, §§439, 440.)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 10
cases, 1978–2008 · leading case: Franklin v. State, 23 So. 3d 694 (Ala. Crim. App. 2008).
Franklin v. State, 23 So. 3d 694 (Ala. Crim. App. 2008). “Section 12-21-165 provides that those without the use of reason, including by reason of infancy, are incompetent witnesses and charges the trial court with deciding upon the capacity of such potential witnesses.”
Murphy v. State, 596 So. 2d 42 (Ala. Crim. App. 1991). “1991), quoting § 12-21-165(6), Code of Alabama 1975. "The burden of proving the incompetency of a witness is upon the party objecting.”
Harris v. Harris, 461 So. 2d 1330 (Ala. Civ. App. 1984). “§ 12-21-165, Code 1975. Thus, the learned trial court erred in prohibiting the fifteen year old son from testifying only because of his relationship to the parties.”
Rogers v. State, 539 So. 2d 451 (Ala. Crim. App. 1988). “*453 Section 12-21-165(b), Code of Alabama 1975 provides as follows: "The court must, by examination, decide upon the capacity of one alleged to be incompetent from idiocy, lunacy, insanity, drunkenness or infancy.”
Rogers v. State, 555 So. 2d 1168 (Ala. Crim. App. 1989). “It is true that § 12-21-165(a) Code of Alabama 1975, provides that “[p]ersons who have not the use of reason, such as idiots, lunatics during lunacy, and children who do not understand the nature of an oath, are incompetent witnesses.”
Price v. State, 590 So. 2d 381 (Ala. Crim. App. 1991). “Section 12-21-165, Code of Alabama 1975, provides: “Persons who have not the use of reason, such as idiots, lunatics during lunacy and children who do not understand the nature of an oath, are incompetent witnesses.”
Myers v. State, 367 So. 2d 550 (Ala. Crim. App. 1978). “Whether or not the court was in error in its ruling that the child was competent is here presented for consideration.”
Slaten v. State, 367 So. 2d 562 (Ala. Crim. App. 1978). “Code 1975, § 12-21-165 Immediately upon call of the witness, the trial judge, very appropriately in view of her immaturity, spoke to her, told her where she should be seated and asked her her age.”
Jackson v. State, 414 So. 2d 1014 (Ala. Crim. App. 1982). “Chad stated that no one suggested or told him that the person he was about to view was in fact the prosecutrix’ assailant.”
Moates v. State, 545 So. 2d 224 (Ala. Crim. App. 1989). “' However, with regard to children, an exception has been made to § 12-21-165(a). Section 15-25-3(c), code of Alabama 1975 (1986 Supp.”
— Ala. Code § 12-21-165(6) — 1 case
Murphy v. State, 596 So. 2d 42 (Ala. Crim. App. 1991). “1991), quoting § 12-21-165(6), Code of Alabama 1975. "The burden of proving the incompetency of a witness is upon the party objecting.”
— Ala. Code § 12-21-165(a) — 2 cases
Rogers v. State, 555 So. 2d 1168 (Ala. Crim. App. 1989). “It is true that § 12-21-165(a) Code of Alabama 1975, provides that “[p]ersons who have not the use of reason, such as idiots, lunatics during lunacy, and children who do not understand the nature of an oath, are incompetent witnesses.”
Moates v. State, 545 So. 2d 224 (Ala. Crim. App. 1989). “' However, with regard to children, an exception has been made to § 12-21-165(a). Section 15-25-3(c), code of Alabama 1975 (1986 Supp.”
— Ala. Code § 12-21-165(b) — 1 case
Rogers v. State, 539 So. 2d 451 (Ala. Crim. App. 1988). “*453 Section 12-21-165(b), Code of Alabama 1975 provides as follows: "The court must, by examination, decide upon the capacity of one alleged to be incompetent from idiocy, lunacy, insanity, drunkenness or infancy.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.