Rule 607. Who May Impeach a Witness

Any party, including the party that called the witness, may attack the witness's credibility.

Committee Notes

Maine Restyling Note [November 2014] Maine Rule 607 and Federal Rule 607 are substantively identical, and therefore the Advisory Committee recommends adoption of the language of the restyled Federal Rule.

Federal Restyling Committee Note The language of Rule 607 has been amended as part of the restyling of the Evidence Rules to make them more easily understood and to make style and terminology consistent throughout the rules. These changes are intended to be stylistic only. There is no intent to change any result in any ruling on evidence admissibility.

Advisers' Note to former M.R. Evid. 607 (February 2, 1976) This rule departs from traditional Maine practice. State v. Fournier, 267 A.2d 638 (Me. 1970). The policy reason for not allowing a party to impeach a witness he has called was that he vouches for the credibility of his own witnesses. This is unrealistic since a party does not have a free choice in selecting witnesses. There has been a recent trend to abandon the old rule either by statute or, occasionally, by judicial decision. It is widely supported by the commentators. This rule goes along with that trend. Under present law a party who is surprised by unfavorable testimony may inquire about prior contradictory statements. Hartford Fire Ins. Co. v. Stevens, 123 Me. 368, 123 A. 38 (1924). Such contradictory statements may be used, however, only for impeachment and not as affirmative evidence. This rule provides an effective weapon for dealing with a turncoat witness who changes his story and deprives the party calling him of essential testimony. Under Rule 801(d)(1) the prior statement, if under oath, can be used as substantive evidence of its truth, as will be explained in the Note to that rule.