to “wipe[] the slate clear of all disqualifications of witnesses” excepting tiróse provided in statute). Significantly, K.S.A. 60-417 provides a limited exception to this broad rule of witness qualification—an exception that applies only when the witness is incompetent. K.S.A. 60-417 (providing a witness is “disqualified” when he or she is incapable of expressing himself or herself in an understandable fashion or when the witness is incapable of understanding the duty to tell the trufo). And, as foe State points out, in order for this exception to apply, foe court must conduct a hearing as to the witness’ competency. See K.S.A. 60-408 (providing “the disqualification of a person to be a witness” is a matter for the judge); State v. Gilliland, 294 Kan. 519, 548, 276 P.3d 165 (2012) (<HOLDING>); State v. Poulos, 196 Kan. 253, 264, 411 P.2d
holding in a case considering whether the trial court should have conducted a competency hearing sua sponte that an appellate court may only consider those facts which were before the court when the trial commenced holding that due process guarantees were not violated where a defendant was excluded from a witness competency hearing and noting that the hearing did not concern the witnesses substantive testimony holding that competency standard for stand ing trial is same as standard for determining competency to waive right to counsel holding trial court could determine whether suggestive interrogation made witness incapable of telling the truth as part of a competency hearing holding that to protect defendants sixth amendment rights a court must determine whether witness identification testimony was tainted by impermissibly suggestive procedures