RULE 613. PREVIOUS STATEMENTS OF WITNESSES
(a) Examining Witness Concerning Previous Statement. In examining a witness concerning 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.
(b) Extrinsic Evidence of Previous Inconsistent Statement of Witness. Extrinsic evidence of 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 801(d)(2).
Rule 613 is an adoption of Rule 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.
SOURCES: Minutes of Joint Procedure Committee: March 24-25, 1988, page 12; December 3, 1987, pages 15-16; June 3, 1976, page 4; October 1, 1975, page 6. Rule 613, Federal Rules of Evidence; Rule 613, SBAND proposal.
CONSIDERED: 31-08-07, NDCC.
CONSIDERED: Rule 32(c), NDRCivP;Rule 15(e), NDRCrimP.
CROSS REFERENCE: Rule 801(d)(2), NDREv.