Witness Interrogation (N.C.R. Evid. 611)
"North Carolina Rules of Evidence, Rule 611 states that the court shall exercise reasonable control over the mode and order of interrogating witnesses and presenting evidence.... l though cross-examination is a matter of right, the scope of cross-examination is subject to appropriate control in the sound discretion of the court. State v. Larrimore, 340 N.C. 119, 150, 456 S.E.2d 789, 805 (1995) (quotation marks omitted).
"On cross-examination, a party is not limited to asking questions about matters in evidence. N.C.G.S. § 8C-1, Rule 611(b) provides a witness may be cross-examined on any matter relevant to any issue in the case, including credibility. The questions asked of the witness were designed to elicit testimony relevant to issues in the case. We have said, in regard to crossexamination, generally (1) the scope thereof is subject to the discretion of the trial judge, and (2) the questions must be asked in good faith. Questions asked on cross-examination will be considered proper unless the record shows they were asked in bad faith. State v. Lovin, 339 N.C. 695, 713, 454 S.E.2d 229, 239 (1995) (citations and quotation marks omitted).
"North Carolina Rule of Evidence 611(b) provides that witness may be cross-examined on any matter relevant to any issue in the case, including credibility. However, such evidence may nonetheless be excluded under Rule 403 if the trial court determines its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence. State v. Whaley, 362 N.C. 156, 159-160, 655 S.E.2d 388, 390 (2008) (citations and quotation marks omitted).
"' North Carolina Rules of Evidence permit broad cross-examination of expert witnesses. The State is permitted to question an expert to obtain further details with regard to his testimony on direct examination, to impeach the witness or attack his credibility, or to elicit new and different evidence relevant to the case as a whole. The largest possible scope should be given, and almost any question may be put to test the value of his testimony.' State v. Gregory, 340 N.C. 365, 410, 459 S.E.2d 638, 663 (1995) (citation omitted) (quoting State v. Bacon, 337 N.C. 66, 88, 446 S.E.2d 542, 553 (1994)), cert. denied, 517 U.S. 1108, 134 L. Ed. 2d 478 (1996).