Evidence Code

ORS 40.310
Rule 601. General rule of competency


Except as provided in ORS 40.310 (Rule 601. General rule of competency) to 40.335 (Rule 606. Competency of juror as witness), any person who, having organs of sense can perceive, and perceiving can make known the perception to others, may be a witness. [1981 c.892 §43]

(Rule 601)

See also annotations under ORS 44.020 in permanent edition.

Notes of Decisions

Under Former Similar Statute (Ors 44.020)

Testing of witness competency by cross-examiner is properly limited to questions about past or present medical treatment that relate specifically to witness ability to perceive, remember and relate matters about which witness testified. State v. Longoria, 17 Or App 1, 520 P2d 912 (1974), Sup Ct review denied

Under Evidence Code

Because this rule, like statutory predecessors, addresses only competency of witness, it does not make inapplicable case law rule that, if child is otherwise competent, it is error to refuse to permit child to testify. Nichols and Fleischman, 67 Or App 256, 677 P2d 731 (1984)

Where Oregon law not Washington Deadman's Statute governed admissibility of testimony in interpleader action brought by insurance company in District of Oregon, testimony of insured's widow and insurance agent was admissible to determine beneficiary. Equitable Life Assur. Soc. of the U.S. v. McKay, 861 F 2d 221 (9th Cir. 1988)

Determination that four-year old victim was competent to testify was matter committed to sound discretion of trial court and discretion was not abused. State v. Bauman, 98 Or App 316, 779 P2d 185 (1989)

§§ 40.310 to 40.335

Notes of Decisions

Where Oregon law not Washington Deadman's Statute governed admissibility of testimony in interpleader action brought by insurance company in District of Oregon, testimony of insured's widow and insurance agent was admissible to determine beneficiary. Equitable Life Assur. Soc. of the U.S. v. McKay, 861 F2d 221 (9th Cir. 1988)

Chapter 40

(Generally)

Notes of Decisions

General rule is that polygraph evidence is inadmissible in proceeding governed by Oregon Evidence Code. State v. Brown, 297 Or 404, 687 P2d 751 (1984)

Party could introduce results of polygraph test taken by spouse for purpose of showing that response of party upon learning polygraph results was reasonable. Fromdahl and Fromdahl, 314 Or 496, 840 P2d 683 (1992)

Where state law completely precludes reliable, materially exculpatory evidence, exclusion of that evidence violates Due Process Clauses of United States Constitution. State v. Cazares-Mendez, 233 Or App 310, 227 P3d 172 (2010), aff'd State v. Cazares-Mendez/Reyes-Sanchez, 350 Or 491, 256 P3d 104 (2011)

Oregon Evidence Code articulates minimum standards of reliability that apply to many types of evidence for admissibility, including eyewitness identification evidence, and parties must employ code to address admissibility of eyewitness testimony. State v. Lawson/James, 352 Or 724, 291 P3d 673 (2012)

Law Review Citations

59 OLR 43 (1980); 19 WLR 343 (1983)

Chapter 40

Evidence Code

Annotations are listed under the heading "Under former similar statute" if they predate the adoption of the Evidence Code, which went into effect January 1, 1982.


Source

Last accessed
Jun. 26, 2021