the testimony in chief, is to deny a substantial right and withdraw one of the safeguards essential to a fair trial. [Quoting Alford v. United States, 282 U.S. 687, 692, 51 S.Ct. 218, 219, 75 L.Ed. 624, 628 (1931)]. The court purported to hold that limitations on cross-examination could never be harmless error. I agree with the majority in this case that we should not follow the dicta in Lauderdale to that extent. Nevertheless, I think any harmless error test must be stringently applied. It is only because Wamser’s counsel in oral argument was unable to articulate any theory under which any possible answer to his questions might have been helpful to the defense that I join in the court’s opinion affirming Wam-ser’s conviction. See Padgett v. State, 590 P.2d 432, 435 (Alaska 1979) (<HOLDING>). 3 . Wamser’s analysis, based on Frye, is
holding that elements of rape do not include proof of the absence of a marital relationship between the accused and the victim holding that restriction of defenses crossexamination of expert was reversible error because only other witnesses testifying as to rape were complainant and defendant holding that statements are admissible in absence of showing that parents were not notified in accordance with statute holding that limitation on scope and breadth of crossexamination did not significantly curtail effectiveness of witness crossexamination because crossexamination was lengthy and extensive holding a restriction on crossexamination of prosecuting witness in rape case not error in absence of offer of proof in accordance with as 1245045