N.M. R. Evid. 11-603
Before testifying, a witness must give an oath or affirmation to testify truthfully. It must be in a form designed to impress that duty on the witness's conscience.
N.M. R. Evid. 11-603
Committee commentary. - The language of Rule 11-603 NMRA was amended in 2012 to be consistent with the restyling of the Federal Rules of Evidence, effective December 1, 2011, to make them more easily understood and to make style and terminology consistent throughout the rules. These changes are intended to be stylistic only. There is no intent to change any result in any ruling on admissibility.
[Adopted by Supreme Court Order No. 12-8300-015, effective for all cases pending or filed on or after June 16, 2012.]
ANNOTATIONS The 2012 amendment, approved by Supreme Court Order No. 12-8300-015, effective for all cases pending or filed on or after June 16, 2012, modified the title of the rule and rewrote the rule to make stylistic changes. The 1993 amendment, effective December 1, 1993, substituted "the witness" for "he" near the beginning, substituted "the witness's" for "his" in two places, and substituted "the duty" for "his duty" near the end. Compiler's notes. - This rule is similar to Rule 603 of the Federal Rules of Evidence. This rule is deemed to have superseded, as to witnesses, former Rule 43(d), N.M.R. Civ. P., which permitted affirmation in lieu of oath.
For form of affirmation in lieu of oath, see Section 14-13-2 NMSA 1978. Child need not expressly understand nature of oath. - Fact that child states in express terms that he does not understand nature of an oath is not of itself sufficient ground for his exclusion as a witness where it clearly appears that child has sufficient intelligence to understand nature of an oath and to narrate facts accurately and that he knows that it is wrong to tell an untruth and right to tell the truth and that if he told an untruth he would be punished and where other facts show that he is competent. State v. Manlove, 1968-NMCA-023, 79 N.M. 189, 441 P.2d 229, cert. denied, 79 N.M. 159, 441 P.2d 57. De novo appeal hearing witnesses must be sworn. - Environmental planning commission erred in failing to require that witnesses appearing at a de novo appeal hearing be sworn. State ex rel. Battershell v. City of Albuquerque, 1989-NMCA-045, 108 N.M. 658, 777 P.2d 386. Am. Jur. 2d, A.L.R. and C.J.S. references. - 81 Am. Jur. 2d Witnesses §§ 708 to 710. Sufficiency, under rules 603 and 604 of Federal Rules of Evidence, of wording of oath, affirmation, or other declaration made by witness, or proposed witness or by court, relating to truthfulness of witness' testimony, 127 A.L.R. Fed. 207. 98 C.J.S. Witnesses § 320.