Fed. R. Evid. 611(a) is substantively identical to subsection (1) of this section. State v. Pangborn, 286 Neb. 363, 836 N.W.2d 790 (2013).
The district court abused its discretion in permitting the jury to use during deliberations a demonstrative exhibit that concisely summarized the prosecutor’s case against the defendant without providing a limiting instruction. State v. Pangborn, 286 Neb. 363, 836 N.W.2d 790 (2013).
When the object of cross-examination is to collaterally ascertain the accuracy or credibility of the witness, some latitude should be permitted, and the scope of such latitude is ordinarily subject to the discretion of the trial judge. State v. Kuehn, 273 Neb. 219, 728 N.W.2d 589 (2007).
Pursuant to subsection (2) of this section, courts limit cross-examination of witnesses to the subject matter of direct examination and matters affecting the credibility of the witness. State v. McLemore, 261 Neb. 452, 623 N.W.2d 315 (2001).
Pursuant to subsection (2) of this section, courts limit cross-examination of witnesses to the subject matter of the direct examination and matters affecting the credibility of the witness. Pursuant to this section, the scope of cross-examination is necessarily limited by the scope of direct examination. State v. Bjorklund, 258 Neb. 432, 604 N.W.2d 169 (2000).
When a party calls a hostile witness, an adverse party, or a witness identified with an adverse party, interrogation may be by leading questions; however, the trial court has broad discretion in declaring a witness hostile, and in order for the court to do so, the record should contain evidence supporting such hostility. Turner v. Welliver, 226 Neb. 275, 411 N.W.2d 298 (1987).
The extent, scope, and course of cross-examination rest within trial court's discretion, and rulings will not be disturbed on appeal absent an abuse of discretion. Fremont Nat. Bank & Trust Co. v. Beerbohm, 223 Neb. 657, 392 N.W.2d 767 (1986).
Judge may use discretion to allow leading questions in direct examination of witness who has a speech disability. State v. Brown, 220 Neb. 849, 374 N.W.2d 28 (1985).
Where a request for a physical examination of the injured party is made during the course of the trial, it rests within the sound discretion of the court whether such request is to be granted, and the ruling thereon will not be disturbed on appeal unless from all circumstances an abuse of discretion appears. Hoegerl v. Burt, 215 Neb. 752, 340 N.W.2d 428 (1983).