State v. Perez, 816 S.E.2d 550

Perez was tried for lewd act on a minor and assault and battery of a high and aggravated nature (charges arose from alleged abuse of two children his wife babysat). No physical evidence; case turned on credibility of victims and mothers.
Minor 1 and Minor 2 testified to multiple incidents; Minor 1's testimony contained inconsistencies on cross-examination. Minor 2 testified to two incidents; some pretrial allegations were limited by the court.
Mothers of both victims (Mother 1 and Mother 2) are undocumented; both applied for U-visas after reporting the alleged abuse. Mother 1 testified about her U-visa and benefit eligibility at trial; the trial court excluded cross-examination about Mother 2's U-visa application and allowed a proffer outside the jury's presence.
Jury convicted Perez of lewd act on a minor and ABHAN; sentence imposed was challenged as vindictive. Perez appealed; Court of Appeals found Confrontation Clause error harmless, affirmed Wallace-based admission of Minor 2, but found sentencing vindictive and remanded for resentencing.
South Carolina Supreme Court granted certiorari and reversed, holding exclusion of testimony about Mother 2's U-visa application violated the Confrontation Clause and was not harmless, and remanded for a new trial; remaining issues were not reached.

Issue	Perez's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Whether excluding cross-examination about Mother 2's U-visa application violated the Confrontation Clause and whether any error was harmless	Exclusion prevented showing potential bias/motive to fabricate tied to U-visa benefits; in a credibility-driven case, that error was not harmless	Admitting error but argued it was harmless given proffer and lack of quid pro quo evidence	Court: Exclusion violated Confrontation Clause and was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt; reversed and remanded for new trial
Admissibility of Minor 2's testimony under State v. Wallace (prior bad acts/common scheme)	Perez argued admission was improper and unfairly prejudicial	State argued Wallace permits admission when similarities outweigh dissimilarities	Court declined to reach this issue (decision on Confrontation Clause dispositive) in majority; Court of Appeals had upheld admission under Wallace
Whether Perez's sentence was vindictive and required remand for resentencing	Perez argued sentence punished him for exercising right to trial	State argued sentence was proper and not vindictive	Court did not reach sentencing issue because Confrontation Clause ruling was dispositive (Court of Appeals had found sentencing vindictive)

Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. 673 (addresses harmlessness analysis for Confrontation Clause violations)
Davis v. Alaska, 415 U.S. 308 (recognizes right to cross-examination to show witness bias)
State v. Wallace, 384 S.C. 428 (2009) (permits admission of prior bad acts in sexual-offense cases when similarities outweigh dissimilarities)
State v. Gracely, 399 S.C. 363 (2012) (standard for scope of cross-examination and review for abuse of discretion)
State v. Henson, 407 S.C. 154 (recent SCOTUS decision ordering new trial where Confrontation Clause error was not harmless)
State v. Lyle, 125 S.C. 406 (1923) (common scheme/plan exception requires visible connection between offenses)
State v. Nelson, 331 S.C. 1 (1998) (cautions against using prior sexual offenses merely to show propensity)