Competency to Testify

(a) In General. Every person is competent to be a witness, except as provided in subdivisions (b) and (c). (b) Competency of Spouse. If one spouse is a party, the other spouse may not testify as a witness in the case unless both consent, except: (1) when called as a witness by the spouse who is a party; (2) in a controversy between them; or (3) in a criminal case for: (A) a criminal act against a child; (B) contributing to the neglect or delinquency of a child; (C) desertion or nonsupport of a child under 16; and (D) abandonment of a child. (c) Competency of Appraiser. When the court – as required by law – appoints a person to make an appraisal for the immediate possession of property in an eminent domain case: (1) the appraiser may not testify as a witness in the trial of the case; and (2) the appraiser’s report is not admissible in evidence during the trial. [Amended effective July 1, 1998; restyled effective July 1, 2016.] Advisory Committee Historical Note Effective July 1, 2016, the Rule was amended as part of the general restyling of the Evidence Rules. Effective June 16, 2016, the “Comment” was retitled “Advisory Committee Note.” Effective October 23, 1997, former Rule 601(b), which precluded testimony from convicted perjurers, was abandoned in Fuselier v. State, 702 So. 2d 388. Effective July 1, 1998, the Advisory Committee Note was amended to reflect this decision. 706-708 So. 2d XLI (West Miss. Cas. 1998). Effective March 20, 1995, the Advisory Committee Note to Rule 601 was amended to delete the reference to a repealed statute. 648-651 So. 2d 651 So. 2d XXVI (West Miss. Cas. 1995). Effective January 31, 1990, Rule 601 and its Advisory Committee Note were amended to reflect the decision in Hudspeth v. State Highway Com'n of Mississippi, 534 So. 2d 210 (Miss. 1990). Advisory Committee Note The language of Rule 601 has been amended as part of the general restyling of the Evidence Rules to make them more easily understood and to make style and terminology consistent throughout the rules. The Rule has been restructured, using an additional subdivision and more paragraphs and subparagraphs. These changes are intended to be stylistic only. There is no intent to change any result in any ruling on evidence admissibility. This rule sets out the special provisions which render certain persons incompetent to testify. As originally written Rule 601 excepted two classes from competency, spouses pursuant to M.C.A. § 13-1-5 and persons convicted of perjury or subornation of perjury pursuant to M.C.A. § 13-1-11. Rule 601 was subsequently amended in 1990 to delete statutory references. Subdivision (b) retains the substance of superseded M.C.A. § 13-1-5. Former subdivision (b) retained the substance of superceded M.C.A. § 13-1-11 as it pertained to persons convicted of perjury or subornation of perjury. In Fuselier v. State, 702 So. 2d 388, decided Oct. 23, 1997 the Mississippi Supreme Court amended the rule by abandoning the perjurer’s incompetency rule, striking that subdivision from the rule. A witness previously convicted of perjury or subornation of perjury is now competent as a witness and the fact of such a prior conviction will be available for impeachment of the witness under Rule 609(a)(2). Subdivision (c) reflects the substance of a prior amendment to Rule 601 made by the Mississippi Supreme Court in Hudspeth v. State Highway Commission of Mississippi, 534 So. 2d 210 (Miss. 1988). The Hudspeth amendment excepted from competency court appointed experts in eminent domain proceedings. The Hudspeth amendment, which was made retroactive to January 1, 1986, specifically referred to the provisions of then existing M.C.A. § 11-27-89. Subdivision (c) reflects the substance of the Hudspeth amendment but deletes any statutory reference. [Amended effective July 1, 1998; “Advisory Committee Note” substituted for “Comment,” effective June 16, 2016; amended July 1, 2016, to note restyling.]