Rule 2:607. IMPEACHMENT OF WITNESSES (Rule 2:607(b) derived from Code § 8.01- 401(A); and Rule 2:607(c) derived from Code § 8.01-403)

(a) In general . Subject to the provisions of Rule 2:403, the credibility of a witness may be impeached by any party other than the one calling the witness, with any proof that is relevant to the witness's credibility. Impeachment may be undertaken, among other means, by:

(i) introduction of evidence of the witness's bad general reputation for the traits of truth and veracity, as provided in Rule 2:608(a) and (b);

(ii) evidence of prior conviction, as provided in Rule 2:609;

(iii) evidence of prior unadjudicated perjury, as provided in Rule 2:608(d);

(iv) evidence of prior false accusations of sexual misconduct, as provided in Rule 2:608(e);

(v) evidence of bias as provided in Rule 2:610;

(vi) prior inconsistent statements as provided in 2:613;

(vii) contradiction by other evidence; and

(viii) any other evidence which is probative on the issue of credibility because of a logical tendency to convince the trier of fact that the witness's perception, memory, or narration is defective or impaired, or that the sincerity or veracity of the witness is questionable. Impeachment pursuant to subdivisions (a)(i) and (ii) of this Rule may not be undertaken by a party who has called an adverse witness.

(b) Witness with adverse interest . A witness having an adverse interest may be examined with leading questions by the party calling the witness. After such an adverse direct examination, the witness is subject to cross-examination.

(c) Witness proving adverse .

(i) If a witness proves adverse, the party who called the witness may, subject to the discretion of the court, prove that the witness has made at other times a statement inconsistent with the present testimony as provided in Rule 2:613.

(ii) In a jury case, if impeachment has been conducted pursuant to this subdivision (c), the court, on motion by either party, must instruct the jury to consider the evidence of such inconsistent statements solely for the purpose of contradicting the witness.

Committee Notes

Adopted and promulgated by Order dated June 1, 2012; effective July 1, 2012 . Last amended by Order dated November 13, 2020; effective July 1, 2021. Rule 2:608 IMPEACHMENT BY EVIDENCE OF REPUTATION FOR TRUTHTELLING AND CONDUCT OF WITNESS (a) Reputation evidence of the character trait for truthfulness or untruthfulness . T he credibility of a witness may be attacked or supported by evidence in the form of reputation, subject to these limitations: (1) the evidence may relate only to character trait for truthfulness or untruthfulness; (2) evidence of truthful character is admissible only after the character trait of the witness for truthfulness has been attacked by reputation evidence or otherwise; and (3) evidence is introduced that the person testifying has sufficient familiarity with the reputation to make the testimony probative. (b) Specific instances of conduct; extrinsic proof . Except as otherwise provided in this Rule, by other principles of evidence, or by statute, (1) specific instances of the conduct of a witness may not be used to attack or support credibility; and (2) specific instances of the conduct of a witness may not be proved by extrinsic evidence. (c) Cross-examination of character witness . Specific instances of conduct may, if probative of truthfulness or untruthfulness, be inquired into on cross-examination of a character witness concerning the character trait for truthfulness or untruthfulness of another witness as to whose character trait the witness being cross-examined has testified. (d) Unadjudicated perjury . If the trial judge makes a threshold determination that a reasonable probability of falsity exists, any witness may be questioned about prior specific instances of unadjudicated perjury. E xtrinsic proof of the unadjudicated perjury may not be shown. (e) Prior false accusations in sexual assault cases . Except as otherwise provided by other evidentiary principles, statutes or Rules of Court, a complaining witness in a sexual assault case may be cross-examined about prior false accusations of sexual misconduct. Adopted and promulgated by Order dated June 1, 2012; effective July 1, 2012 .