State v. Benedict

Summary

The court held that the defendant preserved his confrontation claim but failed to establish that questioning the complainant about undisclosed diversionary-program conditions was relevant to her motive to testify favorably for the state. Because the defendant made no offer of proof or otherwise supplied a factual basis connecting those conditions to prosecutorial influence, the trial court did not violate the confrontation clause by restricting recross-examination. The court reversed the Appellate Court’s judgment and remanded for consideration of the defendant’s remaining claims. There were no separate opinions.