National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws

211 E. Ontario St., Suite 1300, Chicago, IL 60611
tel 312-915-0195, fax 312-915-0187

For Immediate Release

UNIFORM RULES OF EVIDENCE REVISED

August 2, 1999 - A substantial revision to the Uniform Rules of Evidence was approved by the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws (NCCUSL) at its 108th Annual Meeting in Denver, July 23-30. The primary purpose of the Uniform Rules, first drafted by NCCUSL in 1953 and last revised in 1986, is to simplify and codify the rules pertaining to what may be introduced in evidence in any civil or criminal trial in a state court of law. A revision was needed to keep abreast of current developments in the law of evidence, such as the use of DNA evidence, so that the Uniform Rules will retain their vitality and usefulness.

The Uniform Rules traditionally conform as closely as possible to comparable provisions in the Federal Rules of Evidence, so that a trial practitioner need master only one set of rules to comfortably practice in both federal and state trial courts. Additions to the Federal Rules of Evidence have been under consideration in the 1990s, and NCCUSL in turn revisited the Uniform Rules to consider, among other revisions, additions to the Federal Rules.

Some of the revisions in the Uniform Rules, unlike the Federal Rules, such as changing "writings or recorded statements" to the more generic term "records," carries forth the established policy of the NCCUSL to accommodate the use of electronic evidence in business and governmental transactions. The new definition of "record"is "information that is inscribed on a tangible medium, or that is stored in an electronic or other medium and is retrievable in perceivable form."

The Revised Uniform Rules allow for new scientific technology, such as DNA testing, by stating that a "principle or methodology is presumed to be reasonably reliable if it has substantial acceptance within the relevant scientific, technical, or specialized community."
While the Uniform Rules follow the Federal Rules as closely as possible, there are some areas where they differ. For example, Congress added rules that would permit the admissibility of evidence of prior offenses of sexual assault or child molestation when a person is alleged to have committed an act of sexual assault or child molestation. The Revised Uniform Rules do not include this language because it would permit the admission of unfairly prejudicial evidence.

The Uniform Rules recognize the existence of a "licensed social worker" privilege, already recognized in a majority of the jurisdictions in the United States. However, the Uniform Rules narrow the scope of this privilege to a "mental health provider" privilege by including within the privilege only communications relating to the "treatment of a mental or emotional condition, including alcohol or drug addiction."

Another new revision deals with child witnesses. Under the Uniform Rules, in determining the reliability of a child witness, the trial court is required to consider the identity, knowledge, and experience of the person taking the child's statement, and whether the statement has been recorded for an independent review of the statement's trustworthiness.

The revision includes uniform rules on privileges, including lawyer-client privileges and doctor-patient privileges, the issue of expert testimony, and hearsay.

The Uniform Rules state that its primary purpose "is to secure fairness, eliminate unjustifiable expense and delay, and promote the growth and development of the law of evidence, to the end that the truth may be ascertained and issues justly determined."

The committee that revised the Uniform Rules of Evidence was chaired by C. Arlen Beam of Lincoln, Nebraska. Other committee members included: Robert H. Aronson, Seattle, Washington; Rhoda B. Billings, Winston-Salem, North Carolina; W. Grant Callow, Anchorage, Alaska; Michael B. Getty, Chicago, Illinois; Shaun P. Haas, Madison, Wisconsin; David Peeples, San Antonio, Texas; and Russell G. Walker, Jr., Asheboro, North Carolina. Leo H. Whinery of Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, served as the committee's reporter.