A. Subject to subsection B of this section, the court shall exercise control over the manner 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. Any party to a civil action or proceeding may compel any adverse party or person, or any agent, servant or employee of such party or person, for whose benefit such action or proceeding is instituted, prosecuted or defended, to testify as a witness, at the trial, or by deposition, in the same manner and subject to the same rules as other witnesses, provided that any such adverse party, or the adverse party’s agent, servant or employee called as a witness by the opposing party shall be deemed a hostile witness and may be cross-examined by the party calling the witness to the same extent as any opposition witness. C. Cross-examination shall be limited to the subject matter of the direct examination and matters affecting the credibility of the witness. The court may permit inquiry into additional matters as if on direct examination. D. Leading questions should not be used on the direct examination of a witness except as may be necessary to develop the witness’s testimony. Leading questions should ordinarily be permitted on cross-examination. When a party calls a hostile witness, an adverse party, or a witness identified with an adverse party, leading questions may be used on direct examination. Added by Laws 1978, c. 285, § 611, eff. Oct. 1, 1978. Amended by Laws 2002, c. 468, § 50, eff. Nov. 1, 2002.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
21
cases, 1981–2018 · leading case:
Parker v. State, 917 P.2d 980 (Okla. Crim. App. 1996).
Parker v. State, 917 P.2d 980 (Okla. Crim. App. 1996).
· cites it 2× “Title 12 O.S.1991, § 2611(C) provides that cross-examination shall be limited to the subject matter of the direct examination and matters affecting the credibility of the witness.”
Tryon v. State, 2018 OK CR 20 (Okla. Crim. App. 2018).
“2d 1359 , 1362 (quoting 12 O.S.1981, § 2611 ). The prosecutor did nothing more in the challenged passages than impeach, or attempt to impeach, each expert's credibility based on issues raised by their testimony on direct examination.”
Powell v. State, 2000 OK CR 5 (Okla. Crim. App. 2000).
· cites it 2× “the name, place of residence and occupation of the witness, or other matter similarly not in dispute.”
McElmurry v. State, 2002 OK CR 40 (Okla. Crim. App. 2002).
“¶ 120 The prosecutor’s question was asking the doctor whether he was implying that chronic methamphetamine users should not be held accountable for their actions.”
Myers v. State, 2006 OK CR 12 (Okla. Crim. App. 2006).
“Title 12 O.S.1991, § 2611(C) provides that cross-examination shall be limited to the subject matter of the direct examination and matters affecting the credibility of the witness.”
Middlebrook v. Imler, Tenny & Kugler, M.D.'s, Inc., 713 P.2d 572 (Okla. 1985).
“Title 12 O.S.1981 § 2611(D), allows leading questions when a witness is “identified with an adverse party;” and the appellants contend that under the circumstances of the present case, Dr.”
Cooper v. State, 671 P.2d 1168 (Okla. Crim. App. 1983).
“Cooper contends that the trial court erred in refusing to permit a defense witness to testify that she overheard a conversation between Toddy Archilta and Tony Juarez indicating that Juarez killed the victim.”
Hooks v. State, 2005 OK CR 23 (Okla. Crim. App. 2005).
· cites it 2× “2d 721 (1997); 12 O.S.2001, § 2611(C). [20] Charm v. State, 1996 OK CR 40 , 924 P.”
Harjo v. State, 882 P.2d 1067 (Okla. Crim. App. 1994).
“See 12 O.S.1981, § 2611; Coleman v. State, 600 P.”
Wacoche v. State, 644 P.2d 568 (Okla. Crim. App. 1982).
“See 12 O.S.1981, § 2611(C). Counsel may generally cross-examine a witness on all matters covered during direct examination.”
Campbell v. State, 636 P.2d 352 (Okla. Crim. App. 1981).
“” 12 O.S.Supp.1980, § 2611(C). *356 The trial court should allow cross-examination into matters which tend to explain, contradict, or discredit any testimony given by the witness or which tests his accuracy, memory, veracity or credibility.”
Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 2611(A): 2 cases
Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 2611(A)(1): 1 case
Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 2611(B): 1 case
Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 2611(C): 10 cases
Parker v. State, 917 P.2d 980 (Okla. Crim. App. 1996).
“Title 12 O.S.1991, § 2611(C) provides that cross-examination shall be limited to the subject matter of the direct examination and matters affecting the credibility of the witness.”
McElmurry v. State, 2002 OK CR 40 (Okla. Crim. App. 2002).
“¶ 120 The prosecutor’s question was asking the doctor whether he was implying that chronic methamphetamine users should not be held accountable for their actions.”
Myers v. State, 2006 OK CR 12 (Okla. Crim. App. 2006).
“Title 12 O.S.1991, § 2611(C) provides that cross-examination shall be limited to the subject matter of the direct examination and matters affecting the credibility of the witness.”
Hooks v. State, 2005 OK CR 23 (Okla. Crim. App. 2005).
“2d 721 (1997); 12 O.S.2001, § 2611(C). [20] Charm v. State, 1996 OK CR 40 , 924 P.”
Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 2611(D): 5 cases
Powell v. State, 2000 OK CR 5 (Okla. Crim. App. 2000).
“the name, place of residence and occupation of the witness, or other matter similarly not in dispute.”
Middlebrook v. Imler, Tenny & Kugler, M.D.'s, Inc., 713 P.2d 572 (Okla. 1985).
“Title 12 O.S.1981 § 2611(D), allows leading questions when a witness is “identified with an adverse party;” and the appellants contend that under the circumstances of the present case, Dr.”
Cooper v. State, 671 P.2d 1168 (Okla. Crim. App. 1983).
“Cooper contends that the trial court erred in refusing to permit a defense witness to testify that she overheard a conversation between Toddy Archilta and Tony Juarez indicating that Juarez killed the victim.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.