State v. Guenther

854 A.2d 308 (2004)

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 indicted for committing various sexual offenses against D.F. when she was between the ages of ten and fourteen. D, the 'common-law' husband of D.F.'s mother, lived in the same household as D.F. and acted in the role of her 'stepfather' at the time of the alleged acts of sexual abuse. On the first day of trial, P provided D with documents detailing that a little more than six months before D.F. accused D of committing various sexual crimes, she admitted to falsely accusing her neighbor of sexually abusing her. The documents consisted of two investigation reports from the Ocean County Prosecutor's Office and two letters addressed to the prosecutor's office, one from Johan E. de Brigard, the Vice Principal of the middle school attended by D.F., and the other from Mary Ellen Cordisco, a counselor at that school. D requested time to interview the people involved in the investigation and permission to cross-examine D.F. about the prior false allegation. D stated his intent to impeach D.F. with extrinsic evidence in the event she denied making the false accusation. The court rejected D's request for a hearing and ruled that the purported false accusation was 'irrelevant' and 'extremely collateral' and, therefore, inappropriate for consideration by the jury. The trial testimony was extensive and it came down to a credibility issue with lots of inconsistent testimony by D.F. and extensive explanations of why she lied to that person at that time. D denied the charges. The jury found D guilty The Appellate Division in a per curiam opinion remanded for a hearing to determine whether D.F. made an allegation that her neighbor had sexually abused her, and if so, whether the allegation was false. The panel concluded that if the court on remand determined that D.F. did not falsely accuse her neighbor or if it determined that she did and that the evidence nevertheless was inadmissible, then the verdict would stand. If, however, the court found that D.F. did make the false accusation and that it was admissible, a new trial would be necessary. P appealed.