#Badgering the witness trial#

1 (1998) (“the bounds of cross-examination are limited by two general principles: 1) the scope of cross-examination rests within the sound discretion of the trial judge and 2) the questions must be asked in good faith”) (internal citations omitted) State v. Instead, the North Carolina rule adopts a much broader “wide-open cross-examination rule,” subject only to the court’s discretion and a good faith basis for asking the question. This rule expressly rejects the more restrictive view of cross-examination found in the federal rule, which states that “cross-examination should not go beyond the subject matter of the direct examination and matters affecting the witness's credibility.” Fed. Rule 611(b) states that witnesses may be “cross-examined on any matter relevant to any issue in the case, including credibility.” G.S. However, if the prosecutor feels that a particular line of questioning is going too far, he or she should object by making a specific reference to Rule 611 and pointing out why the question is improper, such as needless waste of time, harassment, or embarrassment of the witness.įor more information on the court’s general duties and powers to control the trial proceedings, see the related Trial entries addressing the Duties and Conduct of the Trial Judge: “Must Be Fair and Impartial” (221.1) and “Control of the Courtroom and Proceedings” (221.2).įor more information on the court’s control over the examination of witnesses, see the related Trial entry on Examination of Witnesses (Section A, “Order and Format of Calling Witnesses”). Criminal trials are adversarial by nature, and a vigorous cross-examination has to be expected. 699 (1975) (similar holding).Īsking tough questions is not necessarily “badgering” the witness.

581 (1981) (counsel may not ask impertinent and insulting questions that he knows will not elicit competent or relevant evidence but are designed simply to badger and humiliate witness) State v. 374 (1985) (trial judge did not abuse his discretion by limiting the cross-examination of the state's witness regarding the mental condition of the defendant at time the witness knew her, apparently in an attempt to avoid needless consumption of time, since defense counsel intended to call a psychologist and defendant herself to testify about the defendant's mental condition) State v. 438 (1993) (after defendant asked prosecution witness on re-cross whether he was changing his testimony, trial court’s sustaining of an objection was appropriate to protect witness from harassment or undue embarrassment, while still making interrogation effective for ascertainment of truth) State v. 8C-611(a)(1)-(3), Official Commentary (“The Rule sets forth the objectives the court should seek to obtain rather than spelling out detailed rules”). This rule vests the trial court with wide discretion to govern the details of the trial in order to: (i) promote effective determination of the truth (ii) avoid wasting time and (iii) protect witnesses from undue harassment and embarrassment.

Rule 611(a) states that the court shall exercise “reasonable control” over both the manner and order of the examination of witnesses and presentation of evidence. When a party calls a hostile witness, an adverse party, or a witness identified with an adverse party, interrogation may be by leading questions. Ordinarily leading questions should be permitted on cross-examination. Leading questions should not be used on the direct examination of a witness except as may be necessary to develop his testimony. A witness may be cross-examined on any matter relevant to any issue in the case, including credibility. (3) protect witnesses from harassment or undue embarrassment. (2) avoid needless consumption of time, and (1) make the interrogation and presentation effective for the ascertainment of the truth, The court shall exercise reasonable control over the mode and order of interrogating witnesses and presenting evidence so as to Rule 611 – Mode and Order of Interrogation and Presentation

Badgering the witness