ORS 40.370¹
Rule 611. Mode and order of interrogation and presentation

(1) The court shall exercise reasonable control over the mode and order of interrogating witnesses and presenting evidence so as to make the interrogation and presentation effective for the ascertainment of the truth, avoid needless consumption of time and protect witnesses from harassment or undue embarrassment.

(2) Cross-examination should be limited to the subject matter of the direct examination and matters affecting the credibility of the witness. The court may, in the exercise of discretion, permit inquiry into additional matters as if on direct examination.

(3) Leading questions should not be used on the direct examination of a witness except as may be necessary to develop the witness’ testimony. Ordinarily leading questions should be 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. [1981 c.892 §54b]

(Rule 611)

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

Completed Cita­tions (For ORS 45.570 In Permanent Edi­tion)

State v. Williams, 6 Or App 189, 487 P2d 100 (1971), Sup Ct review denied

Chapter 40


Notes of Decisions

General rule is that polygraph evidence is inadmissible in pro­ceed­ing governed by Oregon Evidence Code. State v. Brown, 297 Or 404, 687 P2d 751 (1984)

Party could introduce results of polygraph test taken by spouse for purpose of showing that response of party upon learning polygraph results was reasonable. Fromdahl and Fromdahl, 314 Or 496, 840 P2d 683 (1992)

Where state law completely precludes reliable, ma­te­ri­ally exculpatory evidence, exclusion of that evidence violates Due Process Clauses of United States Constitu­tion. State v. Cazares-Mendez, 233 Or App 310, 227 P3d 172 (2010), aff’d State v. Cazares-Mendez/Reyes-Sanchez, 350 Or 491, 256 P3d 104 (2011)

Oregon Evidence Code articulates min­i­mum standards of reliability that apply to many types of evidence for admissibility, including eyewitness identifica­tion evidence, and parties must employ code to address admissibility of eyewitness testimony. State v. Lawson/James, 352 Or 724, 291 P3d 673 (2012)

Law Review Cita­tions

59 OLR 43 (1980); 19 WLR 343 (1983)

Chapter 40

Evidence Code

Annota­tions are listed under the heading “Under former similar statute” if they predate the adop­tion of the Evidence Code, which went into effect January 1, 1982.

1 Legislative Counsel Committee, CHAPTER 40—Evidence Code, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­ors/­ors040.­html (2019) (last ac­cessed May 16, 2020).
2 Legislative Counsel Committee, Annotations to the Oregon Revised Stat­utes, Cumulative Supplement - 2019, Chapter 40, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­ors/­ano040.­html (2019) (last ac­cessed May 16, 2020).
3 OregonLaws.org assembles these lists by analyzing references between Sections. Each listed item refers back to the current Section in its own text. The result reveals relationships in the code that may not have otherwise been apparent. Currency Information