PREVIOUS STATEMENTS OF WITNESSES
(a) Examining witness concerning previous statement. In examining a witness
a previous statement made by the witness, whether written or not, the statement need not be
shown nor its contents disclosed to the witness at that time, but on request the same must be
shown or disclosed to opposing counsel.
(a) Showing or Disclosing the Statement During Examination. When examining a witness about the witness's prior statement, a party need not show it or disclose its contents to the witness. But the party must, on request, show it or disclose its contents to an adverse party's attorney.
(b) Extrinsic evidence of previous inconsistent statement of witness. Extrinsic
a previous inconsistent statement by a witness is not admissible unless the witness is
afforded an opportunity to explain or deny the same and the opposite party is afforded an
opportunity to interrogate the witness thereon, or the interests of justice otherwise require.
This provision does not apply to admission of a party-opponent as defined in Rule
(b) Extrinsic Evidence of a Prior Inconsistent Statement. Extrinsic evidence of a witness's prior inconsistent statement is admissible only if the witness is given an opportunity to explain or deny the statement and an adverse party is given an opportunity to examine the witness about it, or if justice so requires. This subdivision (b) does not apply to an opposing party's statement under Rule 801(d)(2).
Rule 613 was amended, effective March 1, 1990; March 1, 2014.
Rule 613 is
an adoption of based on Rule
Fed.R.Ev. 613 of the Federal Rules of Evidence.
The rule has been specifically approved by the North Dakota Supreme Court:
"The rule requiring a predicate for impeachment by prior inconsistent statements,
sometimes called the rule in Queen Caroline's Case, is gradually disappearing. See
McCormick, § 37; 3 Weinstein, Evidence, p. 613-3 (1975). As we have stated, it does
not apply to admissions by parties. As to other witnesses, the requirement has been
eliminated in many recent revisions of the rules of evidence. The new Federal Rules of
Evidence eliminate the requirement of prior opportunity to explain or deny. Instead, they
provide that the witness must have the opportunity at some time to explain or deny, but that
the judge may dispense with the requirement if the interests of justice require. Rule 613(b).
They also provide that the witness need not be shown a contradictory statement, but it must
be shown or disclosed to his counsel on request. Rule 613(a). We believe these rules
represent the best available reconciliation of conflicting interests, and we specifically
approve them." Starr v. Morsette, 236 N.W.2d 183, 188, n. 2 (N.D. 1975).
Rule 613 was amended, effective March 1, 1990. The amendments are technical in nature and no substantive change is intended.
Rule 613 was amended, effective March 1, 2014, in response to the December 1, 2011, revision of the Federal Rules of Evidence. The language and organization of the rule were changed to make the rule more easily understood and to make style and terminology consistent throughout the rules. There is no intent to change any result in any ruling on evidence admissibility.
Sources: Joint Procedure Committee Minutes
: of April 26-27, 2012,
pages 26-27; March
24-25, 1988, page 12; December 3, 1987, pages 15-16; June 3, 1976, page 4; October 1,
1975, page 6. Rule Fed.R.Ev. 613 , Federal Rules of
Evidence; Rule 613, SBAND proposal.
Considered: N.D.C.C. § 31-08-07.
Considered: Rule 32(c), NDRCivP; Rule 15(e), NDRCrimP.
Rule N.D.R.Ev. 801 (d)(2),
NDREv. (Definitions the Apply to This
Article; Exclusions from Hearsay); N.D.R.Civ.P. 32 (Using Depositions in Court
Proceedings): N.D.R.Crim.P. 15 (Depositions).