MOORE, C.J., and MURDOCK and BRYAN, JJ., dissent. 1 . Because R,J. was granted youthful-offender status, we are using initials instead of his name. MOORE, Chief Justice (dissenting). I agree with the Court of Criminal Appeals that the trial court’s “strict application of the hearsay rule deprived [Devonte Cortes] Acosta of the ability to present a complete defense to the jury.” Acosta v. State, 208 So.3d 645, 651 (Ala.Crim.App.2015). “ ‘[T]he Constitution guarantees criminal defendants a “meaningful opportunity to present a complete defense.’”” Holmes v. South Carolina, 547 U.S. 319, 324, 126 S.Ct. 1727, 164 L.Ed.2d 503 (2006) (quoting Crane v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 683, 690, 106 S.Ct. 2142, 90 L.Ed.2d 636 (1986)); see also McWhorter v. State, 142 So.3d 1195, 1255-56 (Ala.Crim.App.2011) (<HOLDING>). In this case, I believe that, under Chambers
recognizing a criminal defendants right to present a complete defense holding that the constitution guarantees criminal defendants a meaningful opportunity to present a complete defense  recognizing defendants right to due process includes the right to present a defense by crossexamining witnesses holding that insanity is a complete defense to the criminal charge recognizing fundamental fairness requires criminal defendants be granted a meaningful opportunity to present a complete defense