Short answer. They can go beyond direct examination. Section 6 of Rule 132 allows cross-examination on any relevant matter, with sufficient fullness and freedom to test the witness's accuracy, truthfulness, and freedom from bias, and to elicit all important facts on the issue — not confined to topics raised during direct examination, so long as it is relevant.
What the law says
the witness may be cross-examined by the adverse party on any relevant matter, with sufficient fullness and freedom to test his or her accuracy and truthfulness and freedom from interest or bias, or the reverse, and to elicit all important facts bearing upon the issue
Rule 132, Section 6 — Cross. Read the full provision →
Cross-examination is deliberately broad
Once direct examination of a witness ends, Section 6 opens the door wide for the opposing party: cross-examination may cover any relevant matter, and it is to be conducted with sufficient fullness and freedom. That phrasing is not accidental — cross-examination exists specifically to give the adverse party a genuine opportunity to probe a witness's story, not a narrow, tightly scripted follow-up limited to whatever topics the witness happened to be asked about on direct.
What the rule says cross-examination is actually for
The section names the purposes explicitly: to test his or her accuracy and truthfulness and freedom from interest or bias, or the reverse, and to elicit all important facts bearing upon the issue. In other words, the opposing lawyer is entitled to probe not just what the witness said, but whether the witness has a stake in the outcome, whether their account holds up, and whether there is important information the direct examination left out.
Why 'relevant matter' is still the boundary
Breadth is not the same as no limit at all — the rule confines cross-examination to relevant matter. Questions that have nothing to do with the case, the witness's credibility, or the facts genuinely at issue remain objectionable even under this generous standard. The word "relevant" is doing real work here: it keeps cross-examination from becoming a license to ask about anything at all, even while giving the examining lawyer wide latitude within that boundary.
What a witness should expect going in
A witness preparing to testify should understand that cross-examination is unlikely to stay confined to a narrow retelling of the direct testimony. Questions can probe motive, bias, consistency with prior statements, and details the witness was never asked about the first time around — which is exactly what this rule is designed to permit, provided those questions still connect to the matters genuinely at issue in the case.