Nature of the Case
To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.
Facts
D was charged with sexual assault on a child. The prosecution's chief witness was the thirteen-year-old victim, T.L. D claimed that T.L.'s allegations were fabricated, and was prepared to offer videotapes and call witnesses to support his theory of the case. T.L. testified, and was then cross-examined by D. T.L. was asked, 'but you're not always honest, are you? D then brought up that T.L. and another shop lifted $100 from her mother’s store. P immediately objected and D claimed relevance under Rule 608(b). The trial court ruled that the question about shoplifting was a prior bad act that was inadmissible pursuant to Rule 404(b) and was not properly noticed to the court and prosecutor. It held that D was attempting to attack T.L.'s truthfulness by extrinsic evidence, which was impermissible. The court held that the shoplifting incident would go to truthfulness only if D established 'she was untruthful with regard to that issue when questioned by someone on that topic.' Plus the court ruled that P had not bolstered T.L.'s credibility on direct examination, so the witness's truthfulness was not at issue. The court declared a mistrial. D moved to dismiss on double jeopardy. That motion was denied. D appealed.
Support@ bsmsphd.com
Casebriefs Co