Summary
The Vermont Supreme Court held that the trial court improperly excluded videotaped prior inconsistent statements offered to impeach the complainant in a criminal sexual-assault prosecution. Because the evidence was relevant to the credibility of the prosecution's key witness and its exclusion violated the defendant's confrontation rights, the error was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. The court reversed the convictions and remanded for a new trial.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the trial court erred by excluding a prior inconsistent statement offered to impeach the prosecution's key witness.
- Whether exclusion of the impeachment evidence violated defendant's right to confront witnesses under the Sixth Amendment, the Fourteenth Amendment, and Chapter I, Article 10 of the Vermont Constitution.
- Whether the exclusionary error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt in light of the other evidence.
Holdings
- The trial court erred by excluding the videotaped prior inconsistent statement because it was relevant impeachment evidence and the court improperly relied on prejudice to defendant, the party offering the evidence, to override defendant's informed tactical choice to present it.
- When otherwise admissible evidence is directed at undermining the credibility of the prosecution's key witness, exclusion of that evidence may violate the defendant's constitutional right to confront witnesses.
- The erroneous exclusion of the impeachment evidence was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, requiring reversal of the convictions and a new trial.
Key quotations
“The right of confrontation is not violated by the exclusion of evidence that is otherwise inadmissible.” (84)
“Because the error cannot be considered harmless beyond a reasonable doubt and is of constitutional dimension, the conviction must be reversed and the case remanded for new trial.” (86)
Factual background
The prosecution's case rested largely on the credibility of the complainant, defendant's daughter, who alleged abuse spanning nearly a decade. At trial, she testified that an incident involving defendant forcing her to drink Alka-Seltzer after oral sex occurred at the family home in Windham County. The defense sought to introduce a videotaped police interview in which she had previously stated that the incident occurred at a hotel in another county. The trial court excluded the prior inconsistent statement as unduly prejudicial to defendant, and the jury convicted defendant despite contested corroborating evidence.
Procedural history
Defendant was charged in 2006. His first trial ended in a hung jury. After a second trial in December 2008, a jury convicted him, and the trial court imposed a sentence of thirty years to life. The Supreme Court of Vermont held that the exclusion of impeachment evidence violated defendant's confrontation rights, reversed the convictions, and remanded for a new trial. A motion for reargument was denied on February 3, 2011.
Remand instructions
Remanded for a new trial.