Short answer. Yes, but narrowly. Section 11 of Rule 132 allows impeachment by contradictory evidence, a bad general reputation for truth or honesty, or prior inconsistent statements — and specifically permits showing that the witness has been convicted of an offense, even though evidence of particular wrongful acts is otherwise not allowed.
What the law says
except that it may be shown by the examination of the witness, or record of the judgment, that he or she has been convicted of an offense
Rule 132, Section 11 — Impeachment of adverse party s witness. Read the full provision →
Four general ways to impeach a witness
Section 11 sets out the standard toolkit for undermining an adverse witness's credibility: contradictory evidence that conflicts with what the witness said, evidence that the witness's general reputation for truth, honesty, or integrity is bad, and evidence that the witness has made at other times statements inconsistent with his or her present testimony. Each of these attacks the witness's reliability from a different angle, and none of them requires proving the witness lied about this particular case — they go to general credibility.
The general rule against 'particular wrongful acts'
The section also states a broader limit that is easy to miss: a witness generally may not be impeached by evidence of particular wrongful acts — specific bad things the witness may have done that never resulted in a conviction or formal record. The reason is practical as much as it is fair: allowing every unproven allegation about a witness's past to be dragged into a trial would turn the proceeding into a series of side trials about the witness's character rather than the actual dispute.
The one carve-out: an actual conviction
Against that general rule, the section carves out one specific exception: it may be shown, by the examination of the witness, or record of the judgment, that he or she has been convicted of an offense. A criminal conviction is different from an unproven allegation precisely because it has already been established through due process, which is why the rule treats it as fair game while keeping unproven "wrongful acts" out.
What this does not let you do
Section 11 lets a genuine conviction come in to challenge credibility — it does not turn the trial into a review of the witness's entire past, and it does not automatically mean the witness's testimony gets thrown out. The conviction is one factor the court weighs alongside everything else the witness said and how it was tested on cross-examination; how much impeachment value a specific conviction actually carries is something a lawyer handling the case would need to argue based on its nature and relevance.
Related provisions
- Rule 132, Section 11 — Impeachment of adverse party s witness
- Rule 132, Section 10 — Leading and misleading questions
- Rule 132, Section 12 — Impeachment by evidence of conviction of crime