2022 Georgia Code
Title 24 - Evidence
Chapter 6 - Witnesses
Article 1 - General Provisions
§ 24-6-611. Mode and Order of Witness Interrogation and Presentation

1. The court shall exercise reasonable control over the mode 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.
2. A witness may be cross-examined on any matter relevant to any issue in the proceeding. The right of a thorough and sifting cross-examination shall belong to every party as to the witnesses called against the party. If several parties to the same proceeding have distinct interests, each party may exercise the right to cross-examination.
3. Leading questions shall not be used on the direct examination of a witness except as may be necessary to develop the witness’s testimony. Ordinarily leading questions shall 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.

History. Code 1981, § 24-6-611 , enacted by Ga. L. 2011, p. 99, § 2/HB 24.

Cross references.

Cross-examination of defendant at pretrial proceedings, § 17-7-28 .

Privilege against self-incrimination and testimony of an accused in a criminal case, § 24-5-506 .

Mode and order of examining witnesses and presenting evidence, Fed. R. Evid. 611.

Law reviews.

For comment on Frady v. State, 212 Ga. 84 , 90 S.E.2d 664 (1955), holding that a defendant has the right to cross-examine all witnesses called against him in all material matters, including the past conduct of the prosecutrix in an action for rape, see 19 Ga. B.J. 95 (1956).

For comment discussing the use of treatises in cross-examining an expert, in light of Hopkins v. Gromovsky, 198 Va. 389, 94 S.E.2d 190 (1956), see 20 Ga. B.J. 109 (1957).

For article, “The Right of Confrontation: Its History and Modern Dress,” see 8 J. of Pub. L. 381 (1959).

For comment on Bacon v. State, 222 Ga. 151 , 149 S.E.2d 111 (1966), see 18 Mercer L. Rev. 506 (1967).

For comment on Mullis v. Chaika, 118 Ga. App. 11 , 162 S.E.2d 448 (1968), see 5 Ga. St. B.J. 377 (1969).

For comment on Smith v. State, 225 Ga. 328 , 168 S.E.2d 587 (1969) and the right to probe relationship of a witness to a party, see 21 Mercer L. Rev. 347 (1969).

For comment on Smith v. State, 225 Ga. 328 , 168 S.E.2d 587 (1969), see 6 Ga. St. B.J. 294 (1970).

For note, “Impeachment of One’s Own Witness in Georgia,” see 9 Ga. St. B.J. 355 (1973).

For comment on Lynn v. State, 231 Ga. 559 , 203 S.E.2d 221 (1974), appearing below, see 8 Ga. L. Rev. 973 (1974).

For note discussing party’s right to impeach own witness in light of Wilson v. State, 235 Ga. 470 , 219 S.E.2d 756 (1975), see 28 Mercer L. Rev. 389 (1976).

For article discussing cross-examination techniques, see 16 Ga. St. B.J. 117 (1980).

For article, “An Analysis of Georgia’s Proposed Rules of Evidence,” see 26 Ga. St. B.J. 173 (1990).

For annual survey on evidence, see 65 Mercer L. Rev. 125 (2013).