0902

I would respond:

"Rule 601 says everyone is competent to be a witness."

If further argument were needed, I would point out that there is no blanket exception for drug addicts or mentally ill people, and there has been no proof that Wallford’s ability to perceive events, remember them, and communicate about them has been damaged to the point where he is incompetent.

Any questions? E-mail me at tanford@indiana.edu and include the reference 902.

What about extreme old age? In part two, the state calls a 97-year-old with bad eyesight whose didn’t see much and probably couldn’t have seen anything relevant. If the defense objects that she is not competent to be a witness, how should the prosecutor respond? When you think you know the answer, click here.