**Rule 611. Mode and Order of Examining Witnesses and Presenting Evidence**

**(a) Control**  **by**

**the Court; Purposes.** The court should exercise reasonable control over the mode and order of examining witnesses and presenting evidence so as to: (1) make those procedures effective for determining the truth; (2) avoid wasting time; and (3) protect witnesses from harassment or undue embarrassment. **(b) Scope of Cross**  **- Examination.**  Cross

-examination of a witness other than a party in a civil case should be limited to the subject matter of the direct examination and matters affecting credibility, however, the court may, in the exercise of discretion, permit inquiry into additional matters as if on direct examination. A party witness in a civil case may be cross

-examined by an adverse party on any matter relevant to any issue in the case, including credibility, unless the court, in the interests of justice, limits the cross

-examination with respect to matters not testified to on direct examination. **(c) Leading Questions.**  Leading questions should not be used on direct or redirect examination except as necessary to develop the witness’s testimony. Ordinarily, the court should allow lea ding questions: (1) on cross - examination; and (2) when a party calls a hostile witness, an adverse party, or a witness identified with an adverse party

. **A witness so examined should usually**  **be interrogated by**

**all other parties as to whom the witness is not**  **hostile or adverse as if under redirect examination. Comment**  Pa.R.E. 611(a) is identical to F.R.E. 611(a). Pa.R.E. 611(b) differs from F.R.E. 611(b). F.R.E. 611(b) limits the scope of cross -examination of all witnesses to matters testified to on direct and matters bearing on credibility, unless the court in its discretion allows inquiry into additional matters as if on direct examination. This has been the traditional view in the Federal courts and many State courts. The cross - examiner does not lose the opportunity to develop the evidence because, unless the witness is the accused in a criminal case, the cross

-2

examiner may call the witness as his or her own. Therefore, the introduction of the evidence is merely deferred. Pa.R.E. 611(b), which is based on Pennsylvania law, applies the traditional view in both civil and criminal cases to all witnesses except a party in a civil case. Under Pa.R.E. 611(b), a party in a civil case may be cross

-examined on all relevant issue s and matters affecting credibility. See Agate v. Dunleavy, **[398 Pa. 26,]** 156 A.2d 530 ( **Pa.** 1959); Greenfield v. Philadelphia , **[282 Pa. 344,]** 127 A. 768 ( **Pa.** 1925). However, in both of those cases, the Court stated that the broadened scope of cross

-exami nation of a party in a civil case does not permit a defendant to put in a defense through cross

examination of the plaintiff. The qualifying clause in the last sentence of Pa.R.E. 611(b) is intended to give the trial judge discretion to follow this longstanding rule. Wh en the accused in a criminal case is the witness, there is an interplay between the limited scope of cross

- examination and the accused's privilege against self

incrimination. Wh en the accused testifies generally as to facts tending to ne gate or raise doubts about the prosecution's evidence, he or she has waived the privilege and may not use it to prevent the prosecution from bringing out on cross

-examination every circumstance related to those facts. See Commonwealth v. Green , **[ 525 Pa. 4** **24, ]**  581 A.2d 544 ( **Pa.** 1990). However, when the accused's testimony is limited to a narrow topic, there is some authority that the scope of cross

-examination may be limited as well. See Commonwealth v. Camm , **[ 443 Pa. 253,**  **]** 277 A.2d 325 ( **Pa.** 1971); Common wealth v. Ulen , **[ 414 Pa. Super. 502,**  **]** 607 A.2d 779 ( **Pa. Super.** 1992), rev'd on other grounds , **[ 539 Pa. 51,**  **]** 650 A.2d 416 ( **Pa.** 1994). Pa.R.E. 611(c) differs from F.R.E. 611(c) in that the word “redirect” has been added to the first sentence. This is consistent with Pennsylvania law. See Commonwealth v. Reidenbaugh, **[ 282 Pa.Super. 300,**  **]** 422 A.2d 1126 ( **Pa. Super.** 1980). **Ad ditionally, th**  **e last sentence of Pa.R.E. 611(c)**  **(2) includes a clause**  **providing that w hen the court gives permission to use leading questions to a**  **party who has called a hostile witness, an adverse party**  **or one identified with an adverse party** **, the court should not exten d that permission to other parties to**  **whom the witness is not hostile or adverse. A**  **party w**  **ho calls**  **a hostile**  **witness, adverse**  **party or**  **one identified**  **with an**  **adverse party**  **may use**  **leading questions**  **because these**  **witnesses are**  **“unfriendly ”**  **to the**  **party ca**  **lling them**  **and there**  **is little**  **risk that**  **they wi**  **ll be**  **susceptible to**  **any s**  **uggestions inherent**  **in the**  **questions. The**  **risk of**  **susceptibility**

**t o**  **suggestion is**  **present, how** **ever, when**  **a party**  **to wh**  **om the**  **witness is**  **“friendly ”**  **( i.e** 
**. to**  **whom the**  **wit ness**  **is not**  **h ostile,**  **an adverse**  **party o**  **r one**  **identified with**  **an adverse**  **party) interrogates**  **the witness.**  **The last**  **clause of**  **Pa.R.E. 611(c)**  **restricts the**  **use of**  **leading questions**  **by a** **p arty** 

**t o**  **wh om**  **the witness**  **is “friendly** **.” The**  **wo rd**  **“usually”, however,**  **was included**  **t o**  **giv e**  **the**3

**court discretion**  **to permit**  **leading questions**  **in an appropriate case. For**  **example, leading**  **questions ma** **y be**  **appropriate when**  **the testimony**  **o f**  **a witness**  **who was**  **called and**  **examined as**  **a hostile**  **witness by**  **o ne**  **party s**  **ubstantially h**  **arms the**  **interes t of another party w**  **ith whom the witness is neither friendly nor unfriendly** 

**.** Note: Adopted May 8, 1998, effective October 1, 1998; rescinded and replaced January 17, 2013, effective March 18, 2013 ; **amended September 1**  **8 , 2014**  **; effective immediately** 

. Committee Explanatory Reports : Final Report explaining the January 17, 2013 rescission and replacement published with the Court’s Order at 43 Pa.B. 651 ( February 2, 2013 ) **; Final Report explaining the**  **September 1 8**  **, 2014 amendment published with the Court**  **’s Order at 44 Pa.B. __ (____________, 2014)** 

.