Court Opinion

ID: 9572823
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 20:45:00.100491+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:34:27.360963
License: Public Domain

ZIMMERMAN, Justice:
(concurring).
I share some of the concerns expressed by Justice Stewart that the trial court may have unduly limited the cross-examination of the victim. As his opinion indicates, the right of cross-examination is especially important in cases where there is little evidence besides the version of the victim and the contradictory version of the defendant. I conclude that the trial court probably erred in excluding all of the additional questions defense counsel sought to ask, especially when there is a reason to believe that these questions were not lacking in foundation. See State v. Hackford, 737 P.2d 200, 203 (Utah 1987). However, under all of the circumstances, I conclude that whatever error the trial court may have committed by unduly limiting cross-examination into prior sexual activities that would have shown sophistication on the part of the victim, sufficient evidence on that point was admitted so as to make the trial court’s error harmless under the applicable federal constitutional standard. See Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. 673, 106 S.Ct. 1431, 89 L.Ed.2d 674 (1986); *645State v. Hackford, 737 P.2d at 205-06 & n. 3.
DURHAM, J., concurs in the concurring opinion of ZIMMERMAN, J.