813 Order approving the revision of the comment to Rule of Evidence 605; No. 696 Supreme Court rules doc.
Title 225—RULES
OF EVIDENCE[ 225 PA. CODE ART. VI ] Order Approving the Revision of the Comment to Rule of Evidence 605; No. 696 Supreme Court Rules Doc. [46 Pa.B. 2409]
[Saturday, May 14, 2016]Order Per Curiam
And Now, this 29th day of April, 2016, upon the recommendation of the Committee on Rules of Evidence; the proposal having been submitted without publication pursuant to Pa.R.J.A. No. 103(a)(3) in the interests of efficient administration, and a Final Report to be published with this Order:
It Is Ordered pursuant to Article V, Section 10 of the Constitution of Pennsylvania that the Comment to Pennsylvania Rule of Evidence 605 is revised in the following form.
This Order shall be processed in accordance with Pa.R.J.A. No. 103(b), and shall be effective immediately.
Annex A TITLE 225. RULES OF EVIDENCE ARTICLE VI. WITNESSES Rule 605. Judge's Competency as a Witness.
The presiding judge may not testify as a witness at the trial or other proceeding.
Comment This rule differs from the first sentence of F.R.E. 605 with the inclusion of ''or other proceeding.'' Pa.R.E. 605 makes a judge absolutely incompetent to be a witness on any matter in any proceeding at which the judge presides. Cf. Municipal Publications, Inc. v. Court of Common Pleas, [507 Pa. 194,] 489 A.2d 1286 (Pa. 1985) (applying former Canon 3C of the Pennsylvania Code of Judicial Conduct, and holding that at a hearing on a motion to recuse a judge, the judge himself could not testify on the issues raised in the motion and continue to preside at the hearing); see also Rule 2.11 of the Code of Judicial Conduct and the Rules Governing Standards of Conduct of Magisterial District Judges.
The second sentence of F.R.E. 605 which provides, ''A party need not object to preserve the issue,'' is not adopted. This is consistent with Pa.R.E. 103(a), which provides that error may not be predicated on a ruling admitting evidence in the absence of a timely objection, motion to strike, or motion in limine. Of course, the court should permit the making of the objection out of the presence of the jury. See Pa.R.E. 103(d).
Official Note: Adopted May 8, 1998, effective October 1, 1998; rescinded and replaced January 17, 2013, effective March 18, 2013; amended April 29, 2016, effective immediately.
Committee Explanatory Reports:
Final Report explaining the January 17, 2013 rescission and replacement published with the Court's Order at 43 Pa.B. 651 (February 2, 2013).
Final Report explaining the April 29, 2016 amendment published with the Court's Order at 46 Pa.B. 2409 (May 14, 2016).
FINAL REPORT1 Revision of the Comment to Rule of Evidence 605 On January 8, 2014, the Court rescinded the then-existing provisions of the Code of Judicial Conduct effective July 1, 2014, and adopted new Canons 1 through 4 of the Code of Judicial Conduct of 2014, also effective July 1, 2014. See 44 Pa.B. 455 (January 25, 2014). At the direction of the Court, the Committee on Rules of Evidence identified and updated references to the Code of Judicial Conduct and Rules Governing Standards of Conduct of Magisterial District Judges in the Comment to Rule 605.
[Pa.B. Doc. No. 16-813. Filed for public inspection May 13, 2016, 9:00 a.m.] _______
