Ex parte DLH
Decision Date | 08 June 2001 |
Citation | 806 So.2d 1190 |
Parties | Ex parte D.L.H. (Re D.L.H. v. State). |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Gregory L. Albritton, Evergreen, for petitioner.
Bill Pryor, atty. gen., and Frances R. Clement, asst. atty. gen., for respondent.
D.L.H. was convicted of one count of first-degree rape by forcible compulsion of B.N.G., two counts of first-degree statutory rape of B.N.G., and one count of first-degree sexual abuse of T.J.G. He was sentenced to three concurrent terms of life imprisonment for his first-degree rape convictions and to 10 years' imprisonment for his first-degree sexual abuse conviction, with the last sentence to run consecutively with his life imprisonment sentences. Upon D.L.H.'s appeal, the Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed his convictions and sentences in an unpublished memorandum. D.L.H. v. State, (No. CR-99-0109, January 28, 2000) 805 So.2d 793 (Ala.Crim.App. 2000) (table). Thereafter, D.L.H. petitioned this Court for certiorari review, which we granted to examine whether the trial court erred to reversal in applying the "rape-shield law," Rule 412, Ala.R.Evid., to preclude the defendant D.L.H. from introducing certain proffered testimony to rebut certain testimony of the rape victim B.N.G. We affirm, because the proffer was insufficient.
B.N.G., who was 14 years old at the time of the trial, testified that D.L.H. had accomplished each rape by "[s]ticking his penis up my vagina." (R. 74.) She testified further that, after he did so, "[w]hite stuff ... came off his penis." (R. 77.) Thereafter, the prosecutor asked the following question:
(R. 85.) Defense counsel then sought to introduce evidence in the defendant's case-in-chief to impeach B.N.G.'s testimony. Upon learning of defense counsel's intention to introduce such evidence, the prosecutor moved in limine to prevent the admission of such evidence. The following discussion occurred outside the presence of the jury before the defendant began his case-in-chief:
(R. 136-42.) Ruling that the admission of the testimony was prohibited by the rapeshield law, Rule 412, Ala.R.Evid., the trial court granted the State's motion in limine and prohibited the defendant from presenting the proffered testimony. (R. 143.)
Rule 412, Ala.R.Evid., provides in pertinent part:
Ex parte Dennis, 730 So.2d at 141 (emphasis added).
When one party opens the door to otherwise inadmissible evidence, the doctrine of "curative admissibility" provides the opposing party with "the right to rebut such evidence with other illegal evidence." McElroy's Alabama Evidence, § 14.01, p. 49 (5th ed.1996). "[T]he law [is] that even though a party introduces evidence that may be immaterial or illegal, his opponent has the right to rebut such evidence and this right is unconditional." Clark v. State, 54 Ala.App. 183, 186, 306 So.2d 51, 54 (1974). "`A party who has brought out evidence on a certain subject has no valid complaint as to the trial court's action in allowing his opponent or adversary to introduce evidence on the same subject.'" Hubbard v. State, 471 So.2d 497, 499 (Ala.Crim.App.1984) (quoting Brown v. State, 392 So.2d 1248, 1260 (Ala.Crim.App.1980), cert. denied, 392 So.2d 1266 (Ala.1981)).
Had the defendant D.L.H. proffered evidence that supported the inference that B.N.G., in fact, had experienced sexual intercourse with others than D.L.H. before the trial, such evidence would have been admissible to rebut her testimony to the contrary. D.L.H.'s proffer, however, was insufficient for that purpose. We will explain both conclusions....
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Gobble v. State, No. CR-05-0225 (Ala. Crim. App. 2/5/2010)
...(quoting Brown v. State, 392 So. 2d 1248, 1260 (Ala. Crim. App. 1980), cert, denied, 392 So. 2d 1266 (Ala. 1981))." Ex parte D.L.H., 806 So. 2d 1190, 1193 (Ala. 2001). Gobble opened the door to this information; she cannot now complain that the State's introduction of similar evidence was e......
-
Scott v. State
...”Brown v. State, 11 So.3d 866, 903 (Ala.Crim.App.2007), quoting Walker v. State, 631 So.2d 294, 301 (Ala.Crim.App.1993). In Ex parte D.L.H., 806 So.2d 1190 (Ala.2001), the Alabama Supreme Court stated:“When one party opens the door to otherwise inadmissible evidence, the doctrine of ‘curati......
-
Gobble v. State
...(quoting Brown v. State, 392 So.2d 1248, 1260 (Ala.Crim.App.1980), cert. denied, 392 So.2d 1266 (Ala.1981)).”Ex parte D.L.H., 806 So.2d 1190, 1193 (Ala.2001). Gobble opened the door to this information; she cannot now complain that the State's introduction of similar evidence was error. Als......
-
Brown V. State Of Ala. Appeal From Talladega Circuit Court (CC-01-290)
...(quoting Brown v. State, 392 So. 2d 1248, 1260 (Ala. Crim. App. 1980), cert, denied, 392 So. 2d 1266 (Ala.1981))." Ex parte D.L.H., 806 So. 2d 1190, 1193 (Ala. 2001). In this case, during its direct examination, the State did not question Smith regarding any allegations of prior abuse Chere......