Wisconsin Statutes
Wis. Stat. § 906.11 (2026)
Mode and order of interrogation and presentation
✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
WI-LEGdocs.legis.wisconsin.gov
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
906.11(1)(1) Control by judge. The judge shall exercise reasonable control over the mode and order of interrogating witnesses and presenting evidence so as to do all of the following:
906.11(1)(a)(a) Make the interrogation and presentation effective for the ascertainment of the truth.
906.11(2)(2) Scope of cross-examination. A witness may be cross-examined on any matter relevant to any issue in the case, including credibility. In the interests of justice, the judge may limit cross-examination with respect to matters not testified to on direct examination.
906.11(3)(3) Leading questions. Leading questions should not be used on the direct examination of a witness except as may be necessary to develop the witness’s testimony. Ordinarily leading questions should be permitted on cross-examination. In civil cases, a party is entitled to call an adverse party or witness identified with the adverse party and interrogate by leading questions.
906.11 AnnotationA question is not leading if it merely suggests a subject rather than a specific answer that may not be true. Hicks v. State, 47 Wis. 2d 38, 176 N.W.2d 386 (1970).
906.11 AnnotationIt is error for a trial court to restrict cross-examination of an accomplice who was granted immunity, but the conviction will not be reversed if the error was harmless. State v. Schenk, 53 Wis. 2d 327, 193 N.W.2d 26 (1972).
906.11 AnnotationA defendant who testifies in the defendant’s own behalf may be recalled for further cross-examination to lay a foundation for impeachment. Evidence that on a prior occasion the defendant did not wear glasses and that the defendant had a gun similar to that described by the complainant was admissible when it contradicted the defendant’s earlier testimony. Parham v. State, 53 Wis. 2d 458, 192 N.W.2d 838 (1972).
906.11 AnnotationA trial judge should not have stricken the entire testimony of a defense witness for refusal to answer questions bearing on the witness’s credibility that had little to do with the guilt or innocence of the defendant. State v. Monsoor, 56 Wis. 2d 689, 203 N.W.2d 20 (1973).
906.11 AnnotationA trial judge’s admonitions to an expert witness did not give the appearance of judicial partisanship requiring a new trial. Peeples v. Sargent, 77 Wis. 2d 612, 253 N.W.2d 459 (1977).
906.11 AnnotationThe extent, manner, and right of multiple cross-examinations by different counsel representing the same party can be controlled by the trial court. Hochgurtel v. San Felippo, 78 Wis. 2d 70, 253 N.W.2d 526 (1977).
906.11 AnnotationA defendant has no right to be actively represented in court both personally and by counsel. Moore v. State, 83 Wis. 2d 285, 265 N.W.2d 540 (1978).
906.11 AnnotationLeading questions were properly used to refresh a witness’s memory. Jordan v. State, 93 Wis. 2d 449, 287 N.W.2d 509 (1980).
906.11 AnnotationBy testifying to his actions on the day a murder was committed, the defendant waived the self-incrimination privilege on cross-examination as to previous actions reasonably related to the direct examination. Neely v. State, 97 Wis. 2d 38, 292 N.W.2d 859 (1980).
906.11 AnnotationUnder the facts of this case, the trial judge’s last minute determination to a witness to testify by telephone was an abuse of discretion, which deprived the defendant of the opportunity to have a meaningful cross-examination of the witness. Town of Geneva v. Tills, 129 Wis. 2d 167, 384 N.W.2d 701 (1986).
906.11 AnnotationDiscussing the use of leading questions in direct examination of a child. State v. Barnes, 203 Wis. 2d 132, 552 N.W.2d 857 (Ct. App. 1996), 95-1831.
906.11 AnnotationA chart prepared by the prosecutor during a trial, in the jury’s presence, to categorize testimony was not a summary under s. 910.06 but was a “pedagogical device” admissible within the court’s discretion under this section. State v. Olson, 217 Wis. 2d 730, 579 N.W.2d 802 (Ct. App. 1998), 96-2142.
906.11 AnnotationThe rule of completeness for oral statements is encompassed within this section. A party’s use of an out-of-court statement to show an inconsistency does not automatically give the opposing party the right to introduce the whole statement. Under the rule of completeness, the court has discretion to admit only those statements necessary to provide context and prevent distortion. State v. Eugenio, 219 Wis. 2d 391, 579 N.W.2d 642 (1998), 96-1394.
906.11 AnnotationThere was no misuse of discretion in allowing a three-year-old child witness to sit on her grandmother’s lap while testifying regarding an alleged sexual assault. The trial court has the power to alter courtroom procedures in order to protect the emotional well-being of a child witness and is not required to determine that a child is unable to testify unless accommodations are provided. State v. Shanks, 2002 WI App 93, 253 Wis. 2d 600, 644 N.W.2d 275, 01-1372.
906.11 AnnotationWhile sub. (1) provides the circuit court with broad discretion to control the presentation of evidence at trial, that discretion is not unfettered and must give way when the exercise of discretion runs afoul of other statutory provisions that are not discretionary. State v. Smith, 2002 WI App 118, 254 Wis. 2d 654, 648 N.W.2d 15, 01-1662.
906.11 AnnotationWhether the trial court erroneously exercised its discretion under sub. (1) (a) to 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 must be determined based upon the particular facts and circumstances of each individual case. The discovery provisions of s. 971.23 do not trump the trial court’s ability to exercise its discretion to grant a continuance order. State v. Wright, 2003 WI App 252, 268 Wis. 2d 694, 673 N.W.2d 386, 03-0238.
906.11 AnnotationUnder the circumstances of this case, when the defendant sought to introduce evidence of prior specific instances of violence within the defendant’s knowledge at the time of the incident in support of a self-defense claim, the circuit court had the authority under this section, in conjunction with s. 901.04 (3) (d), to order the defendant to disclose prior to trial any specific acts that the defendant knew about at the time of the incident and that the defendant intended to offer as evidence so that admissibility determinations could be made prior to trial. State v. McClaren, 2009 WI 69, 318 Wis. 2d 261, 767 N.W.2d 550, 07-2382.
906.11 AnnotationThere is no blanket rule barring or limiting the admission of the type of evidence that linked the cartridge case and bullet to the gun in this case. The admission and scope of such evidence is left to the reasonable discretion of the trial courts to exercise under this section and s. 904.03 and to cross-examination by adversary counsel. State v. Jones, 2010 WI App 133, 329 Wis. 2d 498, 791 N.W.2d 390, 09-2835.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 52
cases (8 in the last 5 years), 1978–2026 · leading case: State v. McClaren, 2009 WI 69 (Wis. 2009).
State v. McClaren, 2009 WI 69 (Wis. 2009). “¶ 2 The court of appeals, in a published decision, held that the circuit court's order exceeded its authority because neither Wis.”
State v. Eddie Lee Anthony, 2015 WI 20 (Wis. 2015). “¶76 Under Wis. Stat. § 906.11 , circuit courts are charged with serving these two purposes.”
Waters Ex Rel. Skow v. Pertzborn, 2001 WI 62 (Wis. 2001). “[12] Section 906.11, entitled "Mode and order of interrogation and presentation," states in pertinent part: (1) Control by judge.”
State v. Eugenio, 579 N.W.2d 642 (Wis. 1998). “Wis. Stat. §906.11 (1). With the substitution of the word "judge" for "court," the provision is identical to FRE 611(a).”
State v. Smith, 2002 WI App 118 (Wis. Ct. App. 2002). “13 and, exercising its powers pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 906.11 , determined that the victim could not be recalled, in order to avoid needless consumption of time and harassment.”
State v. Johnson, 2004 WI 94 (Wis. 2004). “Even without a bright line rule prohibiting the "were they lying" question, judges should preclude this mode of interrogation under Wis. Stat. § 906.11 (2001-02) because a witness's opinion on another's credibility is irrelevant, and is often offered not to ascertain the truth…”
State v. Patrick J. Lynch, 2016 WI 66 (Wis. 2016). “Wis. Stat. § 906.11 . The court has the duty to exercise this control in order to "[m]ake the interrogation and presentation effective for the ascertainment of the truth[;] [a]void needless consumption of time[; and] [p]rotect witnesses from harassment or undue embarrassment.”
Moore v. State, 265 N.W.2d 540 (Wis. 1978). “Sec. 906.11, Stats. The issues raised on this review are as follows: 1.”
State v. Agnello, 593 N.W.2d 427 (Wis. 1999). “Agnello had very little credibility when he testified on his own behalf as evidenced by the manner in which he testified.”
State v. Angel Mercado, 2021 WI 2 (Wis. 2021). “presenting evidence" under Wis. Stat. § 906.11 . 23 No. 2018AP2419-CR ¶51 Here, the court of appeals said that it found support for its conclusion in its opinion in State v.”
State v. C. L. K. (In re S.M.H.), 922 N.W.2d 807 (Wis. 2019). “See Wis. Stat. § 906.11 (2) ("A witness may be cross-examined on any matter relevant to any issue in the case, including credibility.”
State v. Shaffer, 292 N.W.2d 370 (Wis. Ct. App. 1980). “Shaffer argues that this ruling was clearly contrary to sec. 906.11(3), Stats., and therefore denied the defendant his right to a fair and impartial jury trial.”
— Wis. Stat. § 906.11(1) — 15 cases
Waters Ex Rel. Skow v. Pertzborn, 2001 WI 62 (Wis. 2001). “[12] Section 906.11, entitled "Mode and order of interrogation and presentation," states in pertinent part: (1) Control by judge.”
City of New Berlin v. Wertz, 314 N.W.2d 911 (Wis. Ct. App. 1981).
In Re Marriage of Siker v. Siker, 593 N.W.2d 830 (Wis. Ct. App. 1999).
Moore v. State, 265 N.W.2d 540 (Wis. 1978). “Sec. 906.11, Stats. The issues raised on this review are as follows: 1.”
State v. Ross, 2003 WI App 27 (Wis. Ct. App. 2003).
— Wis. Stat. § 906.11(1)(b) — 1 case
State v. GOCKER, 687 N.W.2d 548 (Wis. Ct. App. 2004).
— Wis. Stat. § 906.11(2) — 6 cases
Neely v. State, 292 N.W.2d 859 (Wis. 1980).
Kluever v. Evangelical Reformed Immanuels Congregation, 422 N.W.2d 874 (Wis. Ct. App. 1988).
Avonelle M. Kissack Living Trust v. Am. Transmission Co., LLC (Wis. Ct. App. 2020).
v. Michael J. Thunder (Wis. Ct. App. 2020).
State v. Guillermo Mendoza (Wis. Ct. App. 2021).
— Wis. Stat. § 906.11(3) — 4 cases
State v. Shaffer, 292 N.W.2d 370 (Wis. Ct. App. 1980). “Shaffer argues that this ruling was clearly contrary to sec. 906.11(3), Stats., and therefore denied the defendant his right to a fair and impartial jury trial.”
Erbstoeszer Ex Rel. Leyes v. Am. Cas. Co., 486 N.W.2d 549 (Wis. Ct. App. 1992).
State v. Kielisch, 365 N.W.2d 904 (Wis. Ct. App. 1985).
State v. Barnes, 552 N.W.2d 857 (Wis. Ct. App. 1996).
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.