Short answer. Yes, but within limits. Rule 132, Section 8 allows the adverse party to re-cross-examine the witness once re-direct examination concludes, but that re-cross is restricted to matters raised in the re-direct examination itself, plus any other matters the court allows in its discretion.
What the law says
Upon the conclusion of the re-direct examination, the adverse party may re-cross-examine the witness on matters stated in his or her re-direct examination, and also on such other matters as may be allowed by the court in its discretion.
Rule 132, Section 8 — Re. Read the full provision →
Where re-cross fits in the examination sequence
Witness examination typically unfolds in stages: direct examination by the presenting party, cross-examination by the adverse party, re-direct examination where the presenting party can address points raised on cross, and then re-cross-examination, which is what this section governs. Each later stage generally narrows in scope compared to the one before it, so re-cross is not meant to be a fresh opportunity to relitigate the entire case with the witness again — it responds specifically to what came up during re-direct, keeping the examination process from spiraling into an endless back-and-forth over the same ground.
The scope limitation that actually matters
The right to re-cross-examine is not unlimited: it is confined to matters stated in the re-direct examination, meaning the adverse party generally cannot use re-cross to open entirely new subjects that were never touched during the earlier direct or cross-examination rounds. If re-direct introduced a new explanation or clarified an earlier answer, re-cross may probe that new material, but a party trying to smuggle in an unrelated line of questioning under the label of re-cross should expect an objection, since the rule ties the scope back to what re-direct actually covered.
Where the court's discretion comes in
The rule does leave room beyond that strict scope, allowing "such other matters as may be allowed by the court in its discretion." That discretionary door means a trial judge retains the flexibility to permit re-cross into additional territory where fairness or the interests of justice call for it, even if the matter was not strictly raised on re-direct — but it remains the exception rather than the rule. A party wanting to expand the scope of re-cross beyond re-direct's own content should be prepared to justify that request to the court rather than assuming the wider door is automatically open.
What happens when re-cross goes too far
A question that strays outside both the matters raised on re-direct and whatever the court has separately allowed is a proper target for an objection as beyond the scope of re-cross, and a trial judge who sustains that objection is doing exactly what the rule contemplates. The witness does not have a personal right to refuse an out-of-scope question, but counsel for the party that presented the witness does have a right to object and have the ruling made before the witness answers. Failing to object at the time generally waives the complaint for later, so scope objections on re-cross need to be raised promptly rather than saved for closing argument or a later motion.