Rule 611. Mode and order of interrogation and presentation
Source:
Section 40.370 — Rule 611. Mode and order of interrogation and presentation, https://www.oregonlegislature.gov/bills_laws/ors/ors040.html.
See also annotations under ORS 45.530, 45.550, 45.560 and 45.570 in permanent edition.
Notes of Decisions
Under former similar statute (ORS 45.530)
Where proffered testimony was relevant and material to issues in case, and only one other witness had testified as to such issue, proffered evidence was not cumulative and its exclusion was improper. Northwestern Mutual Insurance Company v. Peterson, 280 Or 773, 572 P2d 1023 (1977)
Under Evidence Code
Discretion of trial judge to control scope of cross-examination does not allow exclusion of evidence offered to impeach witness for bias or interest. State v. Hubbard, 297 Or 789, 688 P2d 1311 (1984)
Where, on direct examination, defendant’s witness had testified that money bags appeared to contain money, on cross-examination prosecutor could ask witness what defendant had said at that time because question was relevant to witness’ knowledge of matter about which he had testified on direct examination and answer was admissible for that purpose. State v. Hart, 84 Or App 160, 733 P2d 469 (1987)
Court of Appeals could not address propriety of limiting cross-examination in trial court, because defendant made no offer of proof and failed to raise issue at trial. State v. Affeld, 307 Or 125, 764 P2d 220 (1988)
In absence of ruling that evidence in dissolution action was or would be irrelevant or redundant, it was error for trial court to summarily end trial and deny husband opportunity to complete his cross-examination and presentation of his case in chief. Howell-Hooyman and Hooyman, 113 Or App 548, 833 P2d 328 (1992)
Cross-examination and redirect examination are not limited to facts stated on direct examination, but extend to matters that limit, explain, or qualify those facts, or that rebut or modify inferences drawn from those facts. State v. Wirfs, 250 Or App 269, 281 P3d 616 (2012), Sup Ct review denied
Where trial court denied defendant’s request to retake witness stand for purposes of examination regarding second incident, which was basis for Counts 4, 5 and 6, after defendant had taken stand for examination regarding first incident, which was basis for Count 3, trial court committed abuse of discretion by not allowing defendant opportunity to make reasonably complete presentation of evidence. State v. Pierce, 307 Or App 429, 477 P3d 437 (2020)
COMPLETED CITATIONS (for ORS 45.570 in permanent edition): State v. Williams, 6 Or App 189, 487 P2d 100 (1971), Sup Ct review denied
Up to date