circumstances, such as when a witness could be substantially

inconvenienced by having to testify on two different occasions. (b) Leading questions. Subsection (b) addresses the use of leading questions on direct or redirect examination. A leading question is a question that suggests the answer desired by the examiner in accord with the examiner’s view of the facts. E.g., Hulk v. Aishberg, 126 Conn. 360, 363, 11 A.2d 380 (1940); State v. McNally, 39 Conn. App. 419, 423, 665 A.2d 137 (1995). Subsection (b) restates the common-law rule. See Mendez v. Dorman, supra, 151 Conn. 198; Bradbury v. South Norwalk, 80 Conn. 298, 302–303, 68 A. 321 (1907). The court is vested with discretion in determining whether leading questions should be permitted on direct or redirect examination. E.g., Hulk v. Aishberg, supra, 126 Conn. 363; State v. Russell, 29 Conn. App. 59, 67, 612 A.2d 471, cert. denied, 224 Conn. 908, 615 A.2d 1049 (1992). Subsection (b) sets forth illustrative exceptions to the gen- eral rule that are discretionary with the court. Exceptions (1) and (2) are well established. Mendez v. Dorman, supra, 151 Conn. 197–98; State v. Stevens, 65 Conn. 93, 98–99, 31 A. 496 (1894); Stratford v. Sanford, 9 Conn. 275, 284 (1832). For purposes of exception (1), ‘‘a witness identified with an adverse party’’ also includes the adverse party. Under exception (3), the court may allow the calling party to put leading questions to a young witness who is apprehen- sive or reticent; e.g., State v. Salamon, 287 Conn. 509, 559–60, 949 A.2d 1092 (2008) (nervous minor victim of assault who needed repeated reassurances from court); State v. Hydock, 51 Conn. App. 753, 765, 725 A.2d 379 (minor victim who ‘‘evinced fear and hesitancy to testify’’), cert. denied, 248 Conn. 921, 733 A.2d 846 (1999); State v. Parsons, 28 Conn. App. 91, 104, 612 A.2d 73 (minor victims of sexual assault who had been ‘‘hesitant to testify, and had difficulty testifying in open court’’), cert. denied, 223 Conn. 920, 614 A.2d 829 (1992); or to a witness who has trouble communicating. See State v. Salamon, supra, 559–60 (native French speaker with substantial difficulty testifying in English). The court may also allow the calling party to put leading questions to a witness whose recollection is exhausted. See State v. Palm, 123 Conn. 666, 675–76, 197 A.2d 168 (1938). Under exception (4), the court has discretion to allow a calling party to use leading questions to develop preliminary matters in order to expedite the trial. State v. Russell, supra, 29 Conn. App. 68; see State v. Castelli, 92 Conn. 58, 65–66, 101 A.2d 476 (1917). It is intended that subsection (b) will coexist with General Statutes § 52-178. That statute allows any party in a civil action to call an adverse party, or certain persons identified with an adverse party, to testify as a witness, and to examine that person ‘‘to the same extent as an adverse witness.’’ The stat- ute has been interpreted to allow the calling party to elicit testimony from the witness using leading questions. See Fasa- nelli v. Terzo, 150 Conn. 349, 359, 189 A.2d 500 (1963); see also Mendez v. Dorman, supra, 151 Conn. 196–98.