People v. Segovia

196 P.3d 1126 (2008)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

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.