finding that Confrontation Clause error in restricting cross-examination was harmful under Van Arsdall and Shelby; noting that the "precluded evidence cast doubt on the reliability of the breath test result and discredited some testimony" by expert in DWI trial
How later courts described this case
- finding that Confrontation Clause error in restricting cross-examination was harmful under Van Arsdall and Shelby; noting that the "precluded evidence cast doubt on the reliability of the breath test result and discredited some testimony" by expert in DWI trial
- holding that error may be preserved by an offer of proof in question and answer form or in the form of a concise statement by counsel
- noting that defendant’s complaint about the trial court’s refusal to allow him to recall a 15 prosecution witness for impeachment purposes was predicated upon an exclusion of evidence—the impeachment testimony
- interpreting a complaint that trial court refused to allow defense counsel to recall witness for further cross-examination as being predicated on exclusion of evidence
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
CLINTON, J.,
dissents because the majority does not address and resolve ground # 2 as presented to and treated by the court of appeals, and in any event the latter should make the harm analysis.