Who may be witnesses — Credibility of witnesses.
All persons, without exception, otherwise than is specified in the next two (2) sections, who, having organs of sense, can perceive, and, perceiving, can make known their perceptions to others, may be witnesses. Therefore, neither parties nor other persons who have an interest in the event of an action or proceeding are excluded; nor those who have been convicted of crime; nor persons on account of their opinions on matters of religious belief; although in every case the credibility of the witness may be drawn in question, by the manner in which he testifies, by the character of his testimony, or by evidence affecting his character for truth, honesty or integrity, or his motives, or by contradictory evidence; and the jury are the exclusive judges of his credibility.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
23
cases, 1955–1991 · leading case:
State v. Knee, 616 P.2d 263 (Idaho 1980).
State v. Knee, 616 P.2d 263 (Idaho 1980).
· cites it 12× “Those laws remain in effect to this date, as I.C. §§ 9-201, 9-202 and 9-203. The legislature has made some amendments, but generally those laws stand inviolate.”
Dinneen v. Finch, 603 P.2d 575 (Idaho 1979).
· cites it 4× “I.C. § 9-201. Nevertheless, a jury will err and the trial judge performs an important function when jury error occurs.”
State v. Iwakiri, 682 P.2d 571 (Idaho 1984).
· cites it 4× “See I.C. § 9-201; I.C. § 9-202. The recently adopted Federal Rules of Evidence, applicable in the federal courts, provide a further example of the continued evolution of a general rule of competency by establishing a rule which reads, "Every person is competent to be a witness…”
State v. Owens, 619 P.2d 787 (Idaho 1980).
· cites it 4× “In Idaho the credibility of a witness is to be considered by the finder of fact in its determination of the weight to be given the testimony by the witness.”
Caldero v. Tribune Publ'g Co., 562 P.2d 791 (Idaho 1977).
· cites it 4× “"A witness, served with a subpoena, must attend at the time appointed, with any papers under his control, required by the subpoena, and answer all pertinent and legal questions, and, unless sooner discharged, must remain until the testimony is closed.”
State v. Dunn, 434 P.2d 88 (Idaho 1967).
· cites it 4× “These boys were competent witnesses within the provisions *96 of I.C. §§ 9-201 and 9-202. No error appears in this regard.”
State v. Anderson, 352 P.2d 972 (Idaho 1960).
· cites it 4× “In all other respects the evidence appears fairly undisputed including the fact that the impact occurred some two feet onto the northwest side of the center line of the highway, in the lane of traffic of the oncoming Greenwell car.”
State v. Hall, 727 P.2d 1255 (Idaho Ct. App. 1986).
· cites it 2× “Did the court err in admitting Pacheco’s testimony? If so, does the error dictate a reversal? As a general rule, “[a] witness may not testify to a matter unless evidence is introduced sufficient to support a finding that he has personal knowledge of the matter. Evidence to prove…”
Curtis v. DeAtley, 663 P.2d 1089 (Idaho 1983).
· cites it 2× ““I.C. § 9-201.” Big Butte Ranch, Inc. v. Grasmick, 91 Idaho 6, 10 , 415 P.”
State v. Santiago, 492 P.2d 657 (Haw. 1971).
“08 (1960); Idaho Code Ann. § 9-201 (1948); La. Rev. Stat.”
State v. Gish, 393 P.2d 342 (Idaho 1964).
· cites it 2× “witness, of whom appellant had inquired as to the whereabouts of his wife, quoted appellant as saying, “I have killed two and a few more won’t hurt”; appellant was also quoted as saying that he didn’t care much for himself but he hated to have his boy see this; the owner of the…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.