State witness competence rules do not apply in federal criminal proceedings.

United States v. Mercado Irizarry, 404 F.3d 497, 500 (1st Cir. 2005) (upholding trial court's admission of officer's testimony about co-defendant's prior consistent statement about the murder because "[co-defendant's] consistent....A prior statement of a witness is exempt from the prohibition against hearsay evidence if the prior statement is consistent with the witness' testimony at the trial or hearing at which the prior statement is offered, the prior statement is offered to rebut a express or implied charge of recent fabrication or motive, and the witness who made the prior statement testifies and is subject to cross-examination at the trial or hearing at which the prior statement is offered.

United States v. Avants, 367 F.3d 433, 444-445 (5th Cir. 2004) (upholding trial court's admission of the 1966 preliminary hearing testimony through Rule 804(b)(1) because the "[defendant] has not presented any reason why....The hearsay exception for prior testimony applies in a criminal case only if the if the party against whom the testimony is now offered had an opportunity and similar motive to develop the testimony in the prior proceeding by direct, cross, or redirect examination. The exception applies in a civil action or proceeding only if the party against whom the testimony is now offered or a predecessor in interest had an opportunity and similar motive in the prior proceeding to develop the testimony by direct, cross, or redirect examination.

Cf. Meaney v. United States, 112 F.2d 538, 539 (2d Cir. 1940) (ordering new trial because the district court erroneously excluded the insured's "history of the case" as narrated to the physician because it was competent).Federal Rule of Evidence 803(4) or a comparable State rule creates a hearsay exception for a statement made for the purpose of medical diagnosis or treatment.