State v. Herring, 189 Vt. 211

Herring was convicted in Windham District Court of aggravated sexual assault, sexual assault on a minor, and lewd or lascivious conduct with a child.
The second trial followed a hung jury at the first trial; the State sought to introduce impeachment evidence of the complainant via a prior inconsistent videotaped statement.
Defense sought to admit a videotaped police interview showing the complainant’s earlier statement that the Alka-Seltzer incident occurred at a hotel in a different county.
The trial court excluded the impeachment evidence as unduly prejudicial, prompting a confrontation-clause challenge.
The Vermont Supreme Court reversed and remanded for a new trial, finding reversible error in the exclusion of impeachment evidence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the impeachment evidence of the complainant was improperly excluded	Herring	State	Reversal: exclusion violated confrontation rights
Whether the trial court's Rule 403 balancing justified excluding the impeachment evidence	Herring	State	Error: not justified; evidentiary ruling erroneous
Whether the restrictions on cross-examination violated the Confrontation Clause	Herring	State	Constitutional violation; must reverse

State v. Cartee, 161 Vt. 73, 632 A.2d 1108 (1993) (1993) (impeachment of key witness implicates due process when credibility is central)
State v. Covell, 146 Vt. 338, 503 A.2d 542 (1985) (1985) (Confrontation Clause and impeachment of a key witness)
State v. Forty, 2009 VT 118, 187 Vt. 79, 989 A.2d 509 (2009) (Constitutional right to cross-examination; wide latitude for impeaching testimony)
State v. Lipka, 174 Vt. 377, 817 A.2d 27 (2002) (2002) (harmless error and standard for evaluating evidentiary rulings)
State v. Raymond, 148 Vt. 617, 538 A.2d 164 (1987) (1987) (Confrontation Clause sufficiency of opportunity to impeach)