Short answer. A misleading question is one that assumes as true a fact the witness has not yet testified to, or that contradicts what the witness already said. The rule states flatly that it is not allowed, and unlike leading questions it carries no listed exceptions.
What the law says
A misleading question is one which assumes as true a fact not yet testified to by the witness, or contrary to that which he or she has previously stated. It is not allowed.
Rule 132, Section 10 — Leading and misleading questions. Read the full provision →
Two distinct forms of the same vice
The definition covers two situations that feel different in the courtroom. The first is a question that assumes as true a fact not yet testified to — asking what colour the car was when nobody has yet said there was a car. The second is a question framed contrary to that which the witness has previously stated — putting it as though the witness said the opposite of what they actually said. In both, the question smuggles in a proposition instead of asking about it, so an answer to any part of it appears to concede the whole.
It is not the same thing as a leading question
These sit in the same provision and are often confused. A leading question suggests the desired answer; it is objectionable because the answer is not really the witness's own. A misleading question goes further and builds a false premise into the question itself. The distinction matters because the rule treats them very differently. A leading question is improper as a general rule but the provision then lists situations where it is permitted.
There is no listed exception
For misleading questions the rule simply says It is not allowed, and stops. It does not go on to permit them on cross-examination, or on preliminary matters, or with an unwilling or hostile witness, as it expressly does for leading questions. That absence is the answer to whether they are ever allowed. It also makes sense: the exceptions for leading questions exist because in those situations suggestion does no real harm, whereas a false premise distorts the record whoever is asking and whoever is answering.
Why it matters to a witness
A misleading question is difficult to handle from the witness box precisely because it is built to be answered rather than corrected — the natural reply accepts the premise on the way to the point. The cure is normally an objection by counsel rather than an argument by the witness. If you are testifying and a question seems to take something as settled that you have not said, the safe course is to say so plainly rather than answer around it, and to let your lawyer object.