Opinion ID: 6108092
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Questioning permitted

Text: Taffner also argues that he was not allowed to conduct a reasonable cross-examination of BT because the court limited him to asking her whether she previously made a false allegation of sexual  abuse against her biological father, and when that charge was made. Taffner generally alleges that he should have been allowed to inquire more fully into the circumstances of BT's false allegation. The Sixth Amendment's Confrontation Clause provides a criminal defendant the right to physically face those who testify against him, and the right to conduct effective cross-examination. Davis , supra. The denial of a defendant's right to expose the jury to facts from which jurors could appropriately draw inferences relating to a witness's reliability is a constitutional error. Winfrey v. State , 293 Ark. 342 , 738 S.W.2d 391 (1987). Here, Taffner was able to question BT about the truth of her prior allegation. BT testified, although with some equivocation, that her allegation against her biological father was false. Taffner was therefore able to successfully impeach BT regarding the allegation. Based on the record before us, we cannot say that the circuit court denied Taffner the right to expose the jury to facts from which the jurors could draw inferences relating to BT's reliability. See id. We do, however, recognize that Taffner's argument for more extensive questioning of BT may have been different depending on the information contained in the DHS file. 4 On remand, if the DHS file contains evidence material to Taffner's defense, he may argue that the evidence demonstrates a need for additional questioning of BT.