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

QUESTION PRESENTED FOR REVIEW Whether a state evidentiary rule prohibiting the introduction of extrinsic evidence of an alleged minor victim’s prior inconsistent (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. ii B. PARTIES INVOLVED AND RELATED CASES 1. Parties Involved The parties involved are identified in the style of the case. Petitioner, Douglas D. McCall, was the defendant in the trial court proceedings and the appellant in the appellate court proceedings. Respondent, the State of Florida, was the plaintiff in the trial court proceedings and the appellee in the appellate court proceedings. 2. Related Cases a. State of Florida v. Douglas D. McCall, case no. 2018-CF-000233, Florida Fifth Judicial Circuit Court, Lake County. Judgment entered on October 15, 2021. b. Douglas D. McCall v. State of Florida, case no. 5D22-476, Florida Fifth District Court of Appeal. Opinion entered on December 13, 2022, rehearing denied on December 21, 2022. iii C.