Rule 601 General rule of competency. Every person is competent to be a witness except as otherwise provided in these rules. L 1980, c 164, pt of §1
RULE 601 COMMENTARY
This rule is identical with the first sentence of Fed. R. Evid. 601. The second sentence of Fed. R. Evid. 601, providing that "in civil actions and proceedings, with respect to an element of a claim or defense as to which State law supplies the rule of decision, the competency of a witness shall be determined in accordance with State law," has been omitted as extraneous.
The rule embodies the intent expressed in the Advisory Committee's Note to Fed. R. Evid. 601 to abolish "religious belief, conviction of crime, and connection with the litigation as a party or interested person or spouse of a party or interested person" as bases for disqualification of a witness. Proper grounds for witness disqualification are set forth in Rules 602 and 603.1 infra.
Although earlier Hawaii statute and case law preserved some of the traditional common-law witness disqualifications, see, e.g., The King v. Brown, 3 H. 114 (1869) (parties in interest), these disqualifications were eliminated by later statutes. See, e.g., Hawaii Rev. Stat. §§621-14, 621-17 (1976) (repealed 1980) (originally enacted as L 1876, c 32, §§49, 51; am L 1943, c 146, §1; am L 1972, c 104, §1(i), (j), (l)). Thus, Rule 601 effects no change in existing Hawaii law.
This rule is subject to Rule 505 supra, providing that "the spouse of the accused [in a criminal case] has a privilege not to testify against the accused." In addition, conviction of crime and interest in the litigation may be provable under Rules 609 and 609.1 infra, to impeach the credibility of witnesses.
Case Notes
Witness incompetent to testify as to all matters dealt with in hypnotherapy sessions. Hypnotically induced recollection held per se inadmissible. 68 H. 233, 709 P.2d 103 (1985).
Where evidence was insufficient to find officer had present recollection of field sobriety test, officer not qualified to testify as witness to that matter. 80 H. 138 (App.), 906 P.2d 624 (1995).
Copyright ©2024 LegalFix. All rights reserved. LegalFix is not a law firm, is not licensed to practice law, and does not provide legal advice, services, or representation. The information on this website is an overview of the legal plans you can purchase—or that may be provided by your employer as an employee benefit or by your credit union or other membership group as a membership benefit.
LegalFix provides its members with easy access to affordable legal services through a network of independent law firms. LegalFix, its corporate entity, and its officers, directors, employees, agents, and contractors do not provide legal advice, services, or representation—directly or indirectly.
The articles and information on the site are not legal advice and should not be relied upon—they are for information purposes only. You should become a LegalFix member to get legal services from one of our network law firms.
You should not disclose confidential or potentially incriminating information to LegalFix—you should only communicate such information to your network law firm.
The benefits and legal services described in the LegalFix legal plans are not always available in all states or with all plans. See the legal plan Benefit Overview and the more comprehensive legal plan contract during checkout for coverage details in your state.
Use of this website, the purchase of legal plans, and access to the LegalFix networks of law firms are subject to the LegalFix Terms of Service and Privacy Policy.