Andrew M. Holland, Appellant v. State of Arkansas, Appellee — Hart, J., Dissenting

Summary

The dissenting opinions would have reversed the conviction because the circuit court excluded records showing that the victim had previously denied being abused and denied access to related treatment records. They reasoned that the evidence was central to the victim’s credibility, admissible for impeachment and potentially for its truth, and that the psychotherapist-patient privilege must yield to the defendant’s constitutional rights. The dissenting justices disagreed with the majority’s conclusion that the exclusion caused no prejudice.