State v. Vigil, 306 P.3d 845

In Sept. 2010, J.B. asked Vigil for a ride from the airport; Vigil drove her to his home, they used drugs, and several days later Vigil raped her; she reported the crime and left Utah for treatment but returned to testify.
At trial J.B. initially testified about her whereabouts the night before trial (saying she went to Temple Square with a care provider); on recall she admitted that testimony was inaccurate and denied visiting a particular defense witness’s neighborhood.
The State later told the court a hotel bus driver said a woman (possibly J.B.) rode the shuttle to an area near that defense witness’s house the night before trial; the driver could not be located for immediate testimony.
The judge proposed, and the State agreed to, a stipulation that (1) J.B.’s revised testimony about that night was false and (2) she had visited the witness’s neighborhood; the court refused defense counsel’s request to recall J.B. for a third cross-examination and read the stipulation to the jury.
The defense called the other witness, who testified J.B. had come the night before seeking drugs; defense did not elicit testimony that J.B. offered money to influence testimony. Jury convicted Vigil of aggravated kidnapping, rape, drug and weapon offenses; acquitted on robbery.
Vigil appealed arguing the denial of a third cross-examination violated his Sixth Amendment Confrontation rights and that the trial court erred in denying his motion for a new trial.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether denying Vigil’s request to recall the victim for a third cross violated the Confrontation Clause	State: limiting a repetitive, marginally relevant cross was within the court’s discretion; stipulation and other evidence adequately exposed credibility issues	Vigil: refusal prevented cross to show motive for perjury and to highlight falsity of victim’s testimony, violating Confrontation Clause	Court: Assuming error, it was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt under Van Arsdall factors; conviction affirmed
Whether denial of a new trial was erroneous	State: any alleged error was harmless and did not substantially affect defendant’s rights	Vigil: alleged Confrontation error warranted new trial	Court: Because any Confrontation error was harmless, denial of new trial was proper

Michigan v. Lucas, 500 U.S. 145 (1991) (Confrontation rights subject to reasonable limitations to accommodate trial management)
Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. 673 (1986) (establishes harmless-error inquiry when confrontation rights limited)
Coy v. Iowa, 487 U.S. 1012 (1988) (harmless-error principles and limits on speculative inquiry about excluded cross-examination)
Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004) (defines Confrontation Clause framework referenced in post-error harmlessness analysis)