JUDICIAL COUNCIL OF RIDGEWAY
Supreme CourtCourts of AppealSuperior CourtsLaw Enforcement
Superior Court Seal
SUPERIOR COURT OF RIDGEWAY
COUNTY OF RIDGEWAY
Home
Online Services
Forms & Filing
Self Help
Divisions
General Information
  1. Home
  2. Rules Library
  3. Rules of Evidence
  4. Rule 607
Rules of Evidence

TITLE SIX — WITNESSES

  • 601Competency
  • 602Need for Personal Knowledge
  • 603Oath or Affirmation to Testify Truthfully
  • 604Interpreters
  • 605Competency of Judge as Witness
  • 606Juror’s Competency as a Witness
  • 607Who May Impeach a Witness
  • 608A Witness’s Character for Truthfulness or Untruthfulness
  • 609Impeachment by Evidence of Conviction of Crime
  • 610Opinions
  • 611Mode and Order of Examining Witnesses and Presenting Evidence
  • 612Writing or Object Used to Refresh Memory
  • 613Prior Statements of Witnesses, Limited Admissibility
  • 614Calling and Examination of Witnesses by Court or Jurors
  • 615Sequestration of Witnesses

TITLE SIX — WITNESSES

Rule 607. Who May Impeach a Witness

Cite asRid. R. Evid. 607Official text at page 34

In this rule

  • 1.Party
  • 2.Methods of Impeachment
  • 3.Extrinsic Evidence
  • 4.Calling a Witness to Impeach
  • 5.The Party’s Own Witness
  • 6.Supporting Credibility
  • 7.Hearsay Declarants
  • 8.Control by the Court
1.§

Party. Any party, including the party that called the witness, may attack the witness’s credibility. However, the party who calls a witness may not impeach that witness by evidence of bad character, including reputation for untruthfulness or prior convictions.

2.§

Methods of Impeachment. Subject to subdivision (1), the credibility of a witness may be attacked by:

1.§

evidence of bias, prejudice, interest, hostility, or a motive to fabricate, developed on cross-examination as of right under Rule 611(2)(b) or by extrinsic evidence;

2.§

evidence of a defect in the witness’s capacity to observe, remember, or relate the matters testified to;

3.§

evidence of the witness’s reputation for untruthfulness under Rule 608(1);

4.§

evidence of a conviction of crime under Rule 609;

5.§

a prior inconsistent statement under Rule 613(1);

6.§

contradiction by other evidence properly admitted upon a matter not collateral, as Rule 613(1)(d) provides; and

7.§

evidence that the witness has received or expects a benefit, immunity, or consideration for the testimony, including a cooperation agreement governed by Rule 1102.

3.§

Extrinsic Evidence. Extrinsic evidence is admissible to prove bias, prejudice, interest, or a defect in capacity without any preliminary inquiry of the witness, and is admissible to prove the matters described in Rule 609 and Rule 613(1) as those rules provide. Extrinsic evidence is not admissible to prove a specific instance of conduct offered only to show the witness untruthful, as Rule 608(2) provides, nor to contradict the witness upon a collateral matter except in the exercise of the court’s discretion under Rule 613(1)(d).

4.§

Calling a Witness to Impeach. A party shall not call a witness for the primary purpose of placing before the fact finder, under the guise of impeachment, evidence which is not otherwise admissible. The court shall exclude such evidence under Rule 403.

5.§

The Party’s Own Witness. The restriction in subdivision (1) upon the party who calls a witness extends only to evidence of bad character, reputation for untruthfulness, and prior convictions. The calling party may attack the witness by every other method stated in subdivision (2), including a prior inconsistent statement upon the foundation required by Rule 613(1)(a), and may examine a hostile witness, an adverse party, or an officer or agent of an adverse corporate party by leading questions as Rule 611(3)(b) provides.

6.§

Supporting Credibility. Evidence supporting the credibility of a witness is not admissible until the witness’s credibility has been attacked. Rule 608(1) governs evidence of a character for truthfulness, and Rule 613(2)(b) governs a prior consistent statement.

7.§

Hearsay Declarants. The credibility of a declarant whose statement is admitted under Title Eight is attacked and supported as Rule 806 provides.

8.§

Control by the Court. The court shall exercise its control under Rule 611(1) and shall exclude under Rule 403 impeachment whose probative value upon credibility is substantially outweighed by a danger of unfair prejudice, confusion, undue delay, or the needless presentation of cumulative evidence. A limitation imposed under this subdivision shall not deny the right secured by Rule 611(2)(b).

Previous606. Juror’s Competency as a WitnessNext608. A Witness’s Character for Truthfulness or Untruthfulness

COURT SERVICES

  • E-Filing
  • Case Access
  • Court Library
  • Expungement Portal

ABOUT THE COURT

  • State of the Court
  • Judicial Roster

DIVISIONS

  • Civil
  • Criminal
  • Small Claims

CONNECT

  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms of Use

© 2026 Superior Court of Ridgeway, County of Ridgeway. All rights reserved.