Navigation

TRE 101: Title & Scope

TRE 102: Purpose and Construction

TRE 103: Rulings on Evidence

TRE 104: Preliminary Questions

TRE 105: Limited Admissibility

TRE 106: Remainder of Writings or Recorded Statements

TRE 107: Texas Rule of Evidence of Optional Completeness

TRE 201: Judicial Notice of Adjudicative Facts

TRE 202: Determination of Law of Other States

TRE 203: Determination of the Laws of Foreign Countries

TRE 204: Determination of Texas City and County Ordinances…

TRE 401: Definition of “Relevant Evidence”

TRE 402: Relevant Evidence Generally Admissible…

TRE 403: Exclusion of Relevant Evidence on Special Grounds

TRE 404: Character Evidence Not Admissible to Prove…

TRE 405: Methods of Proving Character

TRE 406: Habit; Routine Practice

TRE 407: Subsequent Remedial Measures; Notification of Defect

TRE 408: Compromise and Offers to Compromise

TRE 409: Payment of Medical and Similar Expenses

TRE 410: Inadmissibility of Pleas and Related Statements

TRE 411: Liability Insurance

TRE 412: Evidence of Previous Sexual Conduct in Criminal Cases

TRE 412: Privileges Recognized Only as Provided

TRE 412: Required Reports Privileged by Statute

TRE 412: Lawyer-Client Privileges

TRE 412: Spousal Privileges

TRE 412: Communications to Members of the Clergy

TRE 412: Political Vote

TRE 412: Trade Secrets

TRE 412: Identity of Informer

TRE 501: Physician-Patient Privilege

TRE 502: Confidentiality of Mental Health Information in Civil Cases

TRE 503: Waiver of Privilege by Voluntary Disclosure

TRE 504: Privileged Matter Disclosed Under Compulsion

TRE 505: Comment on or Inference From a Privilege Claim; Instruction

TRE 601: Competency and Incompetency of Witnesses

TRE 602: Lack of Personal Knowledge

TRE 603: Oath or Affirmation

TRE 604: Interpreters

TRE 605: Competency of Judge as a Witness

TRE 606: Competency of Juror as a Witness

TRE 607: Who May Impeach a Witness

TRE 608: Evidence of Character and Conduct of a Witness

TRE 609: Impeachment by Evidence of Conviction of Crime

TRE 610: Religious Beliefs or Opinions

TRE 611: Examining Witnesses and Presenting Evidence

TRE 612: Writing Used to Refresh Memory

TRE 613: Prior Statements of Witnesses: Impeachment and Support

TRE 614: Excluding Witnesses

TRE 615: Producing a Witness’s Statement in Criminal Cases

TRE 701: Opinion Testimony by Lay Witnesses

TRE 702: Testimony by Experts

TRE 703: Bases of Opinion Testimony by Experts

TRE 704: Opinion of Ultimate Issue

TRE 705: Disclosure of Facts or Data Underlying Expert Opinion

TRE 706: Audit in Civil Cases

TRE 801: Definitions; Exclusions from Hearsay

TRE 802: Hearsay Rule

TRE 803: Hearsay Exceptions; Availability of Declarant Immaterial

TRE 804: Hearsay Exceptions; Declarant Unavailable

TRE 805: Hearsay Within Hearsay

TRE 806: Attacking and Supporting Credibility of Declarant

TRE 901: Authenticating or Identifying Evidence

TRE 902: Evidence That Is Self-Authenticating

TRE 903:Subscribing Witness’s Testimony

TRE 1001: Definitions That Apply to This Article

TRE 1002: Requirement of the Original

TRE 1003: Admissibility of Duplicates

TRE 1004: Admissibility of Other Evidence of Content

TRE 1005: Copies of Public Records to Prove Content

TRE 1006: Summaries to Prove Content

TRE 1007: Testimony or Statement of a Party to Prove Content

TRE 1008: Functions of Court and Jury

TRE 1009: Translating a Foreign Language Document

 

Site Courtesy of Varghese Summersett

Rule 601: Competency to Testify in General; “Dead Man’s Rule”

(a) In General. Every person is competent to be a witness unless these rules provide otherwise. The following witnesses are incompetent:

(1) Insane Persons. A person who is now insane or was insane at the time of the events about which the person is called to testify.

(2) Persons Lacking Sufficient Intellect. A child—or any other person—whom the court examines and finds lacks sufficient intellect to testify concerning the matters in issue.

(b) The “Dead Man’s Rule.”

(1) Applicability. The “Dead Man’s Rule” applies only in a civil case:

(A) by or against a party in the party’s capacity as an executor, administrator, or guardian; or

(B) by or against a decedent’s heirs or legal representatives and based in whole or in part on the decedent’s oral statement.

(2) General Rule. In cases described in subparagraph (b)(1)(A), a party may not testify against another party about an oral statement by the testator, intestate, or ward. In cases described in subparagraph (b)(1)(B), a party may not testify against another party about an oral statement by the decedent.

(3) Exceptions. A party may testify against another party about an oral statement by the testator, intestate, ward, or decedent if:

(A) the party’s testimony about the statement is corroborated; or

(B) the opposing party calls the party to testify at the trial about the statement.

(4) Instructions. If a court excludes evidence under paragraph (b)(2), the court must instruct the jury that the law prohibits a party from testifying about an oral statement by the testator, intestate, ward, or decedent unless the oral statement is corroborated or the opposing party calls the party to testify at the trial about the statement.

Comment to 2015 Restyling: The text of the “Dead Man’s Rule” has been streamlined to clarify its meaning without making any substantive changes. The text of former Rule 601(b) (as well as its statutory predecessor, Vernon’s Ann. Civ. St. art. 3716) prohibits only a “party” from testifying about the dead man’s statements. Despite this, the last sentence of former Rule 601(b) requires the court to instruct the jury when the rule “prohibits an interested party or witness” from testifying. Because the rule prohibits only a “party” from testifying, restyled Rule 601(b)(4) references only “a party,” and not “an interested party or witness.” To be sure, courts have indicated that the rule (or its statutory predecessor) may be applicable to a witness who is not nominally a party and inapplicable to a witness who is only nominally a party. See, e.g., Chandler v. Welborn, 156 Tex. 312, 294 S.W.2d 801, 809 (1956); Ragsdale v. Ragsdale, 142 Tex. 476, 179 S.W.2d 291, 295 (1944). But these decisions are based on an interpretation of the meaning of “party.” Therefore, limiting the court’s instruction under restyled Rule 601(b)(4) to “a party” does not change Texas practice. In addition, restyled Rule 601(b) deletes the sentence in former Rule 601(b) that states “[e]xcept for the foregoing, a witness is not precluded from giving evidence . . . because the witness is a party to the action . . .” This sentence is surplusage. Rule 601(b) is a rule of exclusion. If the testimony falls outside the rule of exclusion, its admissibility will be determined by other applicable rules of evidence.

Relevant Cases 

Our goal is to add the most important cases involving these rules to this side bar. If you have a case that you think should be added, contact us using the form below.