7.4Oaths or Affirmations of Witnesses and Interpreters1
This section does not discuss juror oaths. For information on that topic, see Section 7.20(D) and Section 7.20(J).
“The word ‘oath’ shall be construed to include the word ‘affirmation’ in all cases where by law an affirmation may be substituted for an oath; and in like cases the word ‘sworn’ shall be construed to include the word ‘affirmed.’” MCL 8.3k.
Together, MCL 600.1432, MCL 600.1434, and MRE 603 govern the oath or affirmation of a testifying witness. Although the statutes set forth “[t]he typical manner for administering oaths” as well as “exceptions to this general rule, . . . the administration of oaths and affirmations is a purely procedural matter, and it thus falls within the authority of our Supreme Court to promulgate rules governing the practices and procedures for administering oaths.” People v Putman, 309 Mich App 240, 243-244 (2015). Accordingly, “to the extent that MRE 603 conflicts with MCL 600.1432 and MCL 600.1434, MRE 603 prevails over the statutory provisions[.]” Putman, 309 Mich App at 245.
Under MRE 603, “no particular ceremonies, observances, or formalities are required of a testifying witness so long as the oath or affirmation awakens the witness’s conscience and impresses his or her mind with the duty to testify truthfully.” Putman, 309 Mich App at 244 (citation, quotation marks, and alterations omitted). There was no plain error and the oath “was sufficient to awaken the witnesses’ consciences and impress the witnesses’ minds with the duty to testify truthfully” where the trial court asked each witness “if they promised to testify truthfully or some similar variation of that question,” and each witness answered affirmatively. Id. at 244-245 (holding that “[b]ecause the administrations of oaths and affirmations is a purely procedural matter, to the extent that MRE 603 conflicts with MCL 600.1432 and MCL 600.1434, MRE 603 prevails over the statutory provisions, meaning that no specific formalities are required of an oath or affirmation”).
Committee Tip:
Traditionally, courts have used the following form: “Do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony you are about to give will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help you God?”
If a witness is opposed to swearing under oath, he or she may instead make a solemn and sincere affirmation under the pains and penalties of perjury. MCL 600.1434. Similarly, “witnesses need not raise their right hands when taking an oath to testify truthfully, and such oaths need not be prefaced with any particular formal words.” Putman, 309 Mich App at 244.
Presumably, the general rules that apply to oaths and affirmations of testifying witnesses, also apply to child witnesses. See Section 7.4(A) for more information. See also M Crim JI 5.9, which states that “[f]or a witness who is a [young] child, a promise to tell the truth takes the place of an oath to tell the truth.” (Alteration in original.)
“An interpreter must be qualified and must give an oath or affirmation to make a true translation.” MRE 604.
Foreign language interpreters. “The court shall administer an oath or affirmation to a foreign language interpreter substantially conforming to the following: ‘Do you solemnly swear or affirm that you will truly, accurately, and impartially interpret in the matter now before the court and not divulge confidential communications, so help you God?’” MCR 1.111(G).
Deaf or deaf-blind interpreters. MCL 393.506(1) requires a qualified interpreter for a deaf or deaf-blind person to swear or affirm to make a true interpretation in an understandable manner to the deaf or deaf-blind person and to interpret the person’s statements in the English language to the best of the interpreter’s ability.