Bindinglaw

SC · rules

SCRE 613

Prior Statements of Witnesses

activein force · 2026-10-02 – presentcompiled-edition

Subject to the provisions of S.C. Code Ann. §§ 19-1-80, 19-1-90 and 19-1-100:

(a) Examining Witness Concerning Prior Statement. In examining a witness concerning a prior

statement made by the witness, whether written or not, the statement need not be shown nor its

contents disclosed to the witness at that time, but on request the same shall be shown or disclosed to

opposing counsel.

(b) Extrinsic Evidence of Prior Inconsistent Statement of Witness. Extrinsic evidence of a prior

inconsistent statement by a witness is not admissible unless the witness is advised of the substance of

the statement, the time and place it was allegedly made, and the person to whom it was made, and is

given the opportunity to explain or deny the statement. If a witness does not admit that he has made

the prior inconsistent statement, extrinsic evidence of such statement is admissible. However, if a

witness admits making the prior statement, extrinsic evidence that the prior statement was made is

inadmissible. This provision does not apply to admissions of a party-opponent as defined in Rule

801(d)(2).

Note:

The language at the beginning of this rule was added to provide that the rule is

subject to the provisions of S.C. Code Ann. §§ 19-1-80 to -100 (1985) regarding written

statements made to public employees.

Subsection (a) is identical to the federal rule. This provision was included in the federal

rule to abolish the holding in The Queen's Case, 2 Br. & B. 284, 129 Eng. Rep. 976

(1820), that a witness must be shown a prior statement before being examined about

the statement. Although no South Carolina case has been found adopting the holding

in The Queen's Case, the language of the federal rule eliminating the requirement of

showing the witness the prior statement has been included in the South Carolina rule.

Subsection (b) of the federal rule was amended to provide that a proper foundation

must be laid before admitting a prior inconsistent statement. A witness must be

permitted to admit, deny, or explain a prior inconsistent statement. McMillan v. Ridges

, 229 S.C. 76, 91 S.E.2d 883 (1956). Extrinsic evidence of the statement is not

admissible unless the witness is advised of the substance of the statement, the time

and place it was allegedly made, and the person to whom it was made. State v.

Galloway, 263 S.C. 585, 211 S.E.2d 885 (1975). In addition, language was added to

subsection (b) to set forth the rule that if the witness admits making the prior

statement, the witness has been impeached and no further extrinsic evidence of the

statement, including the statement itself, is admissible. State v. Lynn, 277 S.C. 222, 284

S.E.2d 786 (1981); McMillan v. Ridges, supra.

Provenance

Source
www.sccourts.org
Retrieved
2026-10-02
Edition
supplied-sc-04-print-version-2026-10-02
Content hash
f2b96a78992ab886ed5f517ccccc1e01b3c3351782034624d7957588edc094fd
View the official source →

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.

Coverage · API docs

Bindinglaw

Point-in-time US law with the receipt attached. Source URL, retrieval time, content hash, and validity dates on every answer.

curl api.binding.law/v1/law/coverage

© 2026 binding.law · a Jubal, Inc. productAttorneys and firms never pay. Ever.