Source: http://www.pacode.com/secure/data/225/chapter6/s601.html
Timestamp: 2015-05-25 23:31:06
Document Index: 240581043

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 5911', '§ 5922', '§ 5924', '§ 5925', '§ 5930', '§ 2209']

Pa.R.E. 601(a) differs from F.R.E. 601(a). It is consistent, instead, with Pennsylvania statutory law. 42 Pa.C.S. § § 5911 and 5921 provide that all witnesses are competent except as otherwise provided. Pennsylvania statutory law provides several instances in which witnesses are incompetent. See, e.g., 42 Pa.C.S. § 5922 (persons convicted in a Pennsylvania court of perjury incompetent in civil cases); 42 Pa.C.S. § 5924 (spouses incompetent to testify against each other in civil cases with certain exceptions set out in 42 Pa.C.S. § § 5925, 5926, and 5927); 42 Pa.C.S. § § 59305933 and 20 Pa.C.S. § 2209 (Dead Mans statutes).
Pennsylvania case law recognizes two other grounds for incompetency, a childs tainted testimony, and hypnotically refreshed testimony. In Commonwealth v. Delbridge, 578 Pa. 641, 855 A.2d 27 (2003), the Supreme Court reiterated concern for the susceptibility of children to suggestion and fantasy and held that a child witness can be rendered incompetent to testify where unduly suggestive or coercive interview techniques corrupt or taint the childs memory and ability to testify truthfully about that memory. See also Commonwealth v. Judd, 897 A.2d 1224 (Pa. Super. 2006).