SC · rules
SCRE 611
Mode and Order of Interrogation and Presentation
(a) Control by Court. The court shall exercise reasonable control over the mode and order of
interrogating witnesses and presenting evidence so as to (1) make the interrogation and presentation
effective for the ascertainment of the truth, (2) avoid needless consumption of time, and (3) protect
witnesses from harassment or undue embarrassment.
(b) Scope of Cross-Examination. A witness may be cross-examined on any matter relevant to any
issue in the case, including credibility.
(c) Leading Questions. Leading questions should not be used on the direct examination of a witness
except as may be necessary to develop the witness' testimony. Ordinarily leading questions should be
permitted on cross-examination. When a party calls a hostile witness, an adverse party, or a witness
identified with an adverse party, interrogation may be by leading questions.
(d) Re-examination and Recall. A witness may be re-examined as to the same matters to which he
testified only in the discretion of the court, but without exception he may be re-examined as to any
new matter brought out during cross-examination. After the examination of the witness has been
concluded by all the parties to the action, that witness may be recalled only in the discretion of the
court. This rule shall not limit the right of any party to recall a witness in rebuttal.
Note:
The language of subsection (a) of this rule is identical to that used in the federal rule.
It is consistent with the general rule in this State that the conduct of the trial, including
the examination of witnesses, is within the sound discretion of the trial judge. See
McMillan v. Ridges, 229 S.C. 76, 91 S.E.2d 883 (1956); State v. Nathari, 303 S.C. 188,
399 S.E.2d 597 (Ct. App. 1990). It should be noted that Rule 614 controls the calling
and interrogation of witnesses by the court.
Under South Carolina law, cross-examination is limited only by the requirement that
the inquiry relate to matters pertinent to the issues involved or to impeachment of the
witness. See State v. Ham, 259 S.C. 118, 191 S.E.2d 13 (1972); Hansson v. General
Insulation and Acoustics, 234 S.C. 177, 107 S.E.2d 41 (1959). The scope of cross-examination is within the discretion of the trial judge. State v. Sherard, 303 S.C. 172,
399 S.E.2d 595 (1991). Subsection (b) rejects the more restrictive language of the
federal rule which limits cross-examination to the subject matter of direct examination
and matters affecting the credibility of the witness.
Subsection (c) is consistent with former law. See Rule 43(b)(1), SCRCP; Rule 43(b)(2),
SCRCP. The use of leading questions when examining a child, State v. Hale, 284 S.C.
348, 326 S.E.2d 418 (Ct. App. 1985), cert. denied, 286 S.C. 127, 332 S.E.2d 533 (1985), is
still permissible under the first sentence of subsection (c) which allows leading
questions when "necessary to develop the witness' testimony."
There was no provision in the federal rule as to re-examination and recall of witnesses.
The provision concerning re-examination and recall of witnesses was added to the
rule to make it consistent with South Carolina law. See Levy v. Outdoor Resorts of
South Carolina, Inc., 304 S.C. 427, 405 S.E.2d 387 (1991); State v. Stroman, 281 S.C. 508,
316 S.E.2d 395 (1984); Huff v. Latimer, 33 S.C. 255, 11 S.E. 758 (1890).
Provenance
- Source
- www.sccourts.org
- Retrieved
- 2026-10-02
- Edition
- supplied-sc-04-print-version-2026-10-02
- Content hash
73d06445b4fb0714d53208020e38b869c29c1dfb8dd6d1b2aa8797c54cc2b630
The link goes to the issuing authority’s own document — the one we read to produce this record. Where a source publishes whole titles rather than sections, your browser may need a moment to jump to the provision.
Unofficial copy of government-published law, reproduced from official sources with full provenance. Not an official publication; verify against official sources before relying on it in a filing. Records in the 'guidance' corpus, and only that corpus, are sub-regulatory (interpretive guidelines, survey procedures) and are not binding law. Validity bounds follow each jurisdiction's declared temporalBasis.