Colo. R. Evid. 601
Every person is competent to be a witness except as otherwise provided in these rules, or in any statute of the State of Colorado.
CRE 601
Committee Comment
The present rule preserves the general Colorado rule under § 13-90-101 , et seq., C.R.S.; and the exceptions listed in §§ 13-90-102 through 13-90-108 .
Annotation Law reviews. For article "The Child Witness", see 22 Colo. Law. 1201 (1993). Determination within trial court's discretion. Determination of the competency of a witness is a matter within the trial court's discretion. People v. District Court, 647 P.2d 1206 (Colo. 1982). Testimonial incapacity due to age is not a bar to admission of a hearsay statement which would otherwise be admissible in evidence as res gestae. People v. Roark, 643 P.2d 756 (Colo. 1982). Witness presumed competent when never adjudicated insane. People v. Galloway, 677 P.2d 1380 (Colo. App. 1983). A witness's intoxication, alone, is not sufficient to determine that the witness is incompetent to testify. There is nothing in the record that indicated the witness lacked the capacity to observe, recollect, communicate, and understand the oath to tell the truth. The witness was thoroughly cross-examined by defense counsel and the court informed the jury of the witness's intoxication status. There was no error in allowing the witness's testimony. People v. Alley, 232 P.3d 272 (Colo. App. 2010). Further, a witness's intoxication, alone, does not require the court to conduct a competency hearing. The court has wide latitude to determine whether to admit an intoxicated witness's testimony and it is the jury's role to determine the witness's credibility. People v. Alley, 232 P.3d 272 (Colo. App. 2010). Procedures for cases involving posthypnotic testimony are as follows: (1) Party intending to elicit such testimony at trial should timely advise opposing party of that fact and make available for inspection any records dealing with the hypnosis sessions. (2) The proponent of the testimony bears the burden of establishing the reliability of such testimony whenever a challenge is made to its admissibility. (3) The preponderance of evidence is the suitable standard for resolving this issue. People v. Romero, 745 P.2d 1003 (Colo. 1987), cert. denied, 485 U.S. 990, 108 S. Ct. 1296, 99 L. Ed. 2d 506 (1988). Hypnotized witness competent to testify to statements made prior to hypnosis if there is an accurate record of prehypnotic recollection which helps insure reliability. People v. Angelini, 706 P.2d 2 (Colo. App. 1985). Posthypnotic testimony. Trial courts must make an individualized inquiry in each case to determine whether the trial testimony of a witness who has been hypnotized will be sufficiently reliable to qualify for admission. This rule is incompatible with either a per se rule of admissibility or a per se rule of inadmissibility. To the extent that People v. Quintanar, 659 P.2d 710 (Colo. App. 1982), adopts such a per se rule of inadmissibility, it is expressly overruled. People v. Romero, 745 P.2d 1003 (Colo. 1987), cert. denied, 485 U.S. 990, 108 S. Ct. 1296, 99 L. Ed. 2d 506 (1988). The central inquiry at a challenge to admissibility is whether, notwithstanding the events occurring during the hypnosis session, the witness' trial testimony will be sufficiently reliable to be admissible. The trial court should consider the totality of circumstances bearing on the issue of reliability and should make adequate findings so as to permit meaningful appellate review. People v. Romero, 745 P.2d 1003 (Colo. 1987), cert. denied, 485 U.S. 990, 108 S. Ct. 1296, 99 L. Ed. 2d 506 (1988). Witness who has been hypnotically relaxed without questioning or suggestion has not thereby been rendered incompetent to testify, although evidence of relaxation technique may be used to impeach witness' credibility. People v. McKeehan, 732 P.2d 1238 (Colo. App. 1986), cert. denied, 753 P.2d 243 (Colo. 1988). Applied in Wise v. Hillman, 625 P.2d 364 (Colo. 1981).