State v. Daniel L. Larkin, 183 A.3d 589

Defendant Daniel Larkin was tried for first- and second-degree aggravated domestic assault based on events Dec. 8–9, 2015; jury acquitted on first-degree count and convicted on second-degree count (roadside incident).
Complainant made a 911 call and told first responders that Larkin assaulted her; those hearsay statements and witnesses describing them were admitted at trial as excited utterances.
Prior to trial, the court ruled complainant's prior conviction for providing false information to a police officer (FIPO) was admissible for impeachment under V.R.E. 609 if she testified, but during trial excluded that conviction after complainant did not testify.
Defense sought to admit the FIPO conviction to impeach complainant as a hearsay declarant (invoking impeachment rules for hearsay declarants); the court refused because complainant did not testify.
The State conceded the exclusion was erroneous on appeal; the central question became whether that error was harmless given the evidence.
The Supreme Court of Vermont held the exclusion was error and not harmless, reversed the conviction, and remanded for a new trial; Chief Justice Reiber (joined by Justice Carroll) dissented, arguing the error was harmless.

Issue	State's Argument	Larkin's Argument	Held
Admissibility of complainant's prior FIPO conviction to impeach her hearsay statements	Rule 609 inapplicable where declarant did not testify; court properly excluded conviction	Impeachment of a hearsay declarant is governed by V.R.E. 806 read with Rule 609's mechanics; prior conviction was admissible to attack credibility of admitted hearsay	Court: Exclusion was erroneous — Rule 806 makes impeachment of hearsay declarants subject to Rule 609, so conviction should have been admitted for impeachment
Harmlessness of exclusion	Evidence of complainant's injuries and corroborating circumstantial evidence made the error harmless beyond a reasonable doubt	The prosecution's case largely depended on complainant's hearsay; the recent FIPO conviction was highly probative of credibility and could have changed verdict	Court: Error was not harmless — balancing showed State's case was comparatively weak on who caused injuries and the excluded conviction could substantially undermine complainant's credibility; reversal required

Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004) (Confrontation Clause framework for testimonial statements)
State v. Haskins, 202 Vt. 461 (2016) (framework weighing strength of State's case against strength of excluded evidence for harmless-error analysis)
State v. Herring, 189 Vt. 211 (2010) (deferential review of evidentiary rulings; burden to show erroneous exclusion)
State v. Oscarson, 176 Vt. 176 (2004) (harmless-error test: must be beyond a reasonable doubt that verdict would be same)
State v. Lipka, 174 Vt. 377 (2002) (error to admit or exclude impeachment evidence addressed by harmless-error standards)