Rule 611. Mode and order of interrogation and presentation

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. The right to cross-examine a witness extends to any matter relevant to any issue and to matters affecting the credibility of the witness, except when a party calls an adverse party or an officer, a director, or a managing agent of a public or private corporation or a partnership or association that is an adverse party, or a witness identified with an adverse party. In those excepted situations, cross-examination by the adverse party may be only upon the subject matter of the witness’s examination-in-chief or upon the witness’s credibility.

(c) Leading questions. Leading questions should not be used on the direct examination of a witness, except when justice requires that they be allowed. Leading questions are 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.

Committee Notes

Advisory Committee’s Notes Section (a). Control by court. As witnesses testify and evidence is presented, several procedural issues arise. These issues are to be resolved, as under pre-existing common law, through the judge’s common sense and fairness. The judge has the primary responsibility for the effective working of the adversary system. Alford v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co., 496 So.2d 19 (Ala.1986) (recognizing that the mode of examining witnesses and the order of introducing evidence are within the discretion of the trial court). See C. Gamble, McElroy’s Alabama Evidence § 433.01 (4th ed. 1977); J. Colquitt, Alabama Law of Evidence § 6.11 (1990). Spelling out detailed rules governing those issues is neither desirable nor feasible. See Fed.R.Evid. 611(a) advisory committee’s note. At least three goals should guide the exercise of this judicial discretion. First, the mode and order of interrogating witnesses and presenting evidence should be such as will promote the ascertainment of the truth. Second, efforts should be made to avoid needless consumption of time. The judge’s discretion in this regard is likewise recognized in Ala.R.Evid. 403. The trial judge, for example, has the discretion to limit the number of witnesses who may be called to testify to a particular matter. Allen v. State, 290 Ala. 339, 276 So.2d 583 (1973). See C. Gamble, McElroy’s Alabama Evidence § 10.06 (4th ed. 1991). Third, witnesses should be protected from harassment or undue embarrassment. Compare Ala. Code 1975, § 12-21-141 (declaring a witness’s right to be protected from improper questions and from a harsh or insulting demeanor). The importance of the testimony, the nature of the inquiry, its relevance to credibility, waste of time, and confusion are factors for the judge to consider in this regard. Efforts to protect the witness, of course, should by no means foreclose efforts to discredit the witness. See Alford v. United States, 282 U.S. 687, 694 (1931) (recognizing that the t