Mode and Order of Interrogation and Presentation — Rule 611

• Jurisdiction: Colorado

Mode and Order of Interrogation and Presentation — Rule 611

SUMMARY OF RULE 611

• Governs the trial court's control over mode and order of interrogating witnesses and presenting evidence.
• Scope of cross-examination is limited to subject matter of direct examination and credibility of the witness. Court may permit inquiry into additional matters as if on direct examination.
• Leading questions should not be used on direct examination except as necessary to develop testimony.
• Leading questions are permitted in cross-examination, with a hostile witness or witness identified with an adverse party.

LEGAL AUTHORITIES

• The trial court has discretion to determine the scope and limit of cross-examination, and, absent abuse of discretion, its rulings will not be disturbed. People v. Fresquez, 526 P.2d 146 (Colo. 1974).

• Parties in a civil proceeding have a limited constitutional right to cross-examine adverse witnesses. In re Marriage of Martin, 910 P.2d 83 (Colo. App. 1995).

• A court's interest in administrative efficiency may not be given precedence over a party's right to due process, including the right to cross-examination and the right to sufficient time to make orderly presentation of the case. "[C]ounsel has a duty to make an accurate estimate, as nearly as possible, of the time which is required to try a case in order to assist the court in managing its dockets." In re Marriage of Goellner, 770 P.2d 1387, 1389 (Colo. App. 1989) (court's limit of six hours for each party for both direct and cross-examination violated due process).

• Effective cross-examination does not mean unlimited, and a court "may place reasonable limits based on concerns about harassment, prejudice, confusion or interrogation that is repetitive or only marginally relevant." In re Marriage of Ikeler, 148 P.3d 347 (Colo. App. 2006), rev'd on other grounds, 161 P.3d 663 (Colo. 2007).

• Where counsel agreed to seven hours each to present the case, including cross-examination, there was no abuse in the court's refusal to extend the time. In re Marriage of Yates, 148 P.3d 304 (Colo. App. 2006).

• The trial court did not abuse its discretion in allowing the prosecutor, upon redirect, to ask leading questions in order to clarify confusing testimony given during cross-examination. People v. Gillis, 883 P.2d 554 (Colo. App. 1994).

• Cross-examination should be liberally construed to permit any matter germane to the direct examination. People v. Marion, 941 P.2d 287 (Colo. App. 1996)...