SC · rules
SCRE 613
Prior Statements of Witnesses
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
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.