Whether a state evidentiary rule prohibiting the introduction of extrinsic evidence of an alleged minor victim's prior inconsistent statements/recantations (i.e., a video deposition where the alleged minor victim denied that any criminal activity occurred) must yield to a criminal defendant's constitutional rights under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments – thereby allowing the introduction of the video deposition where the minor victim recanted – in a case where the prosecution introduced not only the alleged minor victim's testimony at trial but also a video of the alleged minor victim's prior interview with law enforcement officials where she initially made the allegations.

Whether a state evidentiary rule prohibiting the introduction of extrinsic evidence of an alleged minor victim's prior inconsistent statement must yield to a criminal defendant's constitutional rights