Criminal law — Battery — Jurors — Voir dire — No abuse of discretion in prohibiting defense from inquiring about prospective jurors’ views on witness “flip-flopping” where defense counsel was seeking improperly to assess opinions of jurors about credibility of particular witness or value of evidence related to that witness — Defendant’s ability to determine jurors’ views on recantation was not curtailed where defense was offered opportunity to inquire about jurors’ views of witnesses who have made prior inconsistent statements but failed to do so — Evidence — Hearsay — Trial court erred in allowing state to reference statements of non-testifying witness that would corroborate statements of testifying witnesses in opening statement, during examination of investigating officer, and in closing argument — Evidence was hearsay, irrespective of fact that actual statements made by non-testifying witness were not repeated — Error was not harmless where, in light of conflicting evidence from victim and eyewitness, there was reasonable probability that repeated references to statements had impact on verdict — Trial court erred by not allowing defense counsel to recall state witnesses in its case-in-chief to inquire about areas that were outside of scope of cross-examination, but error was not preserved — If defense request was to recall state witness for re-cross examination, trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying request where defense did not advise court of significance of impeachment it intended to offer through witnesses or what testimony needed to be clarified — New trial required because of improper admission of hearsay