State v. James K.

Summary

The court affirmed the defendant’s conviction for risk of injury to a child. It clarified that restricting voir dire is reversible error only when the trial court clearly abuses its discretion and the defendant suffers harmful prejudice, and concluded that any limitation here was not prejudicial. It also held that the trial court properly admitted the victim’s forensic interview because the recording contained probative details, the record showed that the court considered prejudice, and the defendant had challenged the recording as a whole rather than seeking redaction.