See 12 J. Moore, et al., Moore's Federal Practice ¶ 60.61 (3d ed. 2021) ("It has long been established that no independent federal jurisdictional basis is needed to support a Rule 60(b) motion proceeding. A Rule 60(b) motion is considered a continuation of the original proceeding."); State v. Danforth, 2008 VT 69, ¶ 15, 184 Vt. 122, 956 A.2d 554 (recognizing that where state rule is identical to federal rule in all material respects, "we rely on federal precedent for guidance"). ¶ 35.
The trial court acted within its discretion in declining to admit the statement without this foundation evidence. Young, 139 Vt. at 538-39 (affirming trial court's exclusion of prior inconsistent statements of complainant, which defendant sought to admit for impeachment purposes, where defense counsel had not previously asked complainant about specific inconsistent statements or given her an opportunity to explain them); see also State v. Danforth, 2008 VT 69, ¶ 19, 184 Vt. 122 (affirming trial court's refusal to admit extrinsic evidence of prior inconsistent statement by witness where defense counsel did not lay proper foundation when witness testified). As noted above, defendant did go on to ask Mr. Johnson about specific assertions contained in his written statement.
In addition, Vermont case law addressing Vermont Rule 48(a) is limited, making our reliance on federal case law particularly appropriate. See State v. Danforth, 2008 VT 69, ¶ 15, 184 Vt. 122, 956 A.2d 554. ¶ 10. Federal cases interpreting Federal Rule 48(a) acknowledge that the government's authority to dismiss an indictment, information, or complaint extends throughout the prosecution, and a prosecution includes appellate proceedings.
We have noted that Rule 613(b) contains “strict limits against the admission of the statement itself,” Spaulding, 2014 VT 91, ¶ 34, 197 Vt. 378, 103 A.3d 487, but our case law interpreting Rule 613(b) is limited. State v. Danforth, 2008 VT 69, ¶ 15, 184 Vt. 122, 956 A.2d 554. Similarly, although 12 V.S.A. § 1642 explicitly allows impeachment of one's own witness, we have interpreted this statute sparingly.
"Plain-error analysis requires us to consider whether these are exceptional circumstances where a failure to recognize error would result in a miscarriage of justice, or where there is glaring error so grave and serious that it strikes at the very heart of the defendant's constitutional rights." State v. Danforth, 2008 VT 69, ¶ 11, 184 Vt. 122, 956 A.2d 554 (quotation omitted). In his brief, defendant argues only that the second limiting instruction delivered during the jury charge was inadequate.
Moreover, when our rule is identical to its federal counterpart, we look to federal cases interpreting the federal rule for guidance. State v. Danforth, 2008 VT 69, ¶ 15, 184 Vt. 122, 956 A.2d 554. ¶ 17.