Home › South Carolina › South Carolina Rules of Evidence › Rule 610

Court Rules Network • courtrules.net

SCRE 610

Not legal advice. Verify against official sources before relying on this text in any legal matter.

Rule 610 Religious Beliefs or Opinions

Article VI. Witnesses

← Previous Rule 609: Impeachment by Evidence of Conviction of Crime Next → Rule 611: Mode and Order of Interrogation and Presentation

Rule Text

Evidence of the beliefs or opinions of a witness on matters of religion is not admissible for the purpose of showing that by reason of their nature the witness' credibility is impaired or enhanced.

Plain-English Summary (for reference only — not a substitute for the rule text above)

This summary is not the rule. The rule text controls.

Lawyers cannot attack or boost a witness's credibility by bringing up their religious beliefs. What someone believes about religion, or whether they believe in anything at all, says nothing about whether they are telling the truth in court.

This means a lawyer cannot ask a witness questions about their faith just to make the jury think they are more honest or less honest. For example, a lawyer cannot suggest a witness is lying because they don't belong to a church, or suggest a witness is truthful because they attend religious services regularly. Religion simply is not allowed as a factor when judging whether someone's testimony can be trusted.

This rule keeps the focus on the actual facts and testimony in a case, rather than a witness's personal faith or lack of it. Courts want juries deciding cases based on evidence, not on personal beliefs about religion that have nothing to do with the case.

Committee Notes

Note:

No changes were made to the language of the federal rule. The South Carolina Supreme Court has held that a belief in God is not a prerequisite to allowing the witness to testify. State v. Green, 267 S.C. 599, 230 S.E.2d 618 (1976); State v. Hicks, 257 S.C. 279, 185 S.E.2d 746 (1971). However, in State v. Turner, 36 S.C. 534, 15 S.E. 602 (1892), the State was allowed to question the accused concerning comments ridiculing religion which he had allegedly made in order to impeach his credibility. This case is inconsistent with the rule.

← Previous Rule 609: Impeachment by Evidence of Conviction of Crime Next → Rule 611: Mode and Order of Interrogation and Presentation