State v. Herndon - 145 Wis. 2d 91, 426 N.W.2d 347 (Ct. App. 1988)

Rule:

The Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees a defendant a fair trial by providing him with the right to cross-examine all witnesses against him. The right of cross-examination is more than a desirable rule of trial procedure. It is implicit in the constitutional right of confrontation, and helps assure the accuracy of the truth-determining process by revealing any possible biases, prejudices or ulterior motives of the witness. The right is applicable to the states under the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment.

Facts:

Leonard Herndon (Herndon) appealed from a conviction of third-degree sexual assault in violation of sec. 940.225(3), Stats. Herndon claimed that he was denied his right to confrontation under the sixth amendment of the United States Constitution and article I, section 7 of the Wisconsin Constitution when he was denied the opportunity to cross-examine M.L.P., the juvenile complaining witness, about her prior arrests for prostitution. Herndon argued that an effective cross-examination was necessary to test M.L.P.'s credibility and to show her motive to fabricate the charge. Herndon also claimed that he was denied his constitutional right to present witnesses in his own behalf. Herndon argued that the trial court erred in holding that Wisconsin's rape shield law, sec. 972.11(2), Stats., precluded any evidence of M.L.P.'s prior sexual conduct.

Issue:

Was Herndon denied his constitutional right to confrontation and right to present witnesses in his own behalf?

Answer:

Yes.

Conclusion:

The court reversed the decision of the trial court and remanded the case to the trial court with directions. The court determined that U.S. Const. amend. VI and Wis. Const. art. I, § 7 guarantee a defendant the right to confront adverse witnesses, that Wis. Stat. 972.11(2) provided only limited exceptions to the rape shield law, that the absolution nature of the rape shield law violated defendant's right to confrontation because it precluded the balancing test mandated in Davis v. Alaska, 415 U.S. 308 (1974), and that, therefore, § 972.11(2)(c), which precluded admission or reference to evidence unless expressly permitted under other sections, was unconstitutional.