Page:Herren v. State, 2018 Ark. App. 528.pdf/8

 essentially one in which Herren encouraged a sixteen-year-old girl to drink eleven shots of whiskey and then raped her. Introducing the above evidence changes that story rather significantly. Herren argued that BLR was cognizant and consenting at the time of the charged conduct and had he been allowed to introduce evidence of BLR's conduct with him leading up to penetration, it could have bolstered his testimony and his account of the events. The circuit court's ruling precluding Herren from introducing that evidence and questioning witnesses about those events was prejudicial to Herren and therefore not harmless.

Because we reverse and remand for retrial for this reason, we need not address Herren's remaining argument that the circuit court's application of the rape-shield exclusion violated his rights under the Confrontation Clause and denied him due process.

Reversed and remanded.

and, JJ., agree.

John Wesley Hall and Sarah M. Pourhosseini, for appellant.

Leslie Rutledge, Att'y Gen., by: Vada Berger, Ass't Att'y Gen., for appellee.