Ex parte Loyd

Decision Date19 April 1991
Citation580 So.2d 1374
PartiesEx parte Walter LOYD. (Re Walter Loyd v. State). 89-1423.
CourtAlabama Supreme Court

Gary A. Hudgins, Dothan, for petitioner.

Don Siegelman, Atty. Gen., and Yvonne A. Henderson, Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondent.

ADAMS, Justice.

Walter Loyd was convicted of sodomy in the first degree, in violation of Ala.Code 1975, § 13A-6-66. He was sentenced to 10 years in prison and was ordered to pay a fine and a victim's compensation assessment totalling $5,500. The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed. See Loyd v. State, 580 So.2d 1370 (Ala.Cr.App.1990). We reverse and remand with instructions.

The evidence presented by the State tended to show the following facts:

Susan Marie Loyd, Walter Loyd's 16-year-old daughter, had been living with her father and stepmother in her father's trailer in Rehobeth, Alabama. On January 10, 1988, Susan Loyd was sunbathing behind the trailer. Susan was lying in the sun in her bathing suit when Walter Loyd approached her and stated that he wanted to put baby oil on her. Susan protested, but he began rubbing her with the oil. He then held her down and ripped the back of her bathing suit and tore the bottom off. Susan continued to protest and attempted to free herself, but Walter climbed on top of her and pinned her to the ground. He then put his tongue into her vagina. Susan was eventually able to free herself and run into the trailer.

Walter Loyd was later indicted and charged with first degree sodomy. During his trial, he attempted to elicit testimony and to introduce evidence that Susan Loyd had, on prior occasions, falsely accused some men of sexual misconduct and had threatened others with like false accusations. The trial judge ruled that this evidence was inadmissible because it violated the rape shield statute.

On this certiorari review, Walter Loyd raises the issue of whether evidence of the victim's prior false allegations and threats of false allegations of sexual misconduct by persons other than the defendant may be introduced to show a "common plan, scheme, design or system" by the victim. Loyd argues that evidence of Susan Loyd's prior false charges and threats would show a common plan or scheme whereby she falsely accused and/or threatened charges of sexual misconduct to manipulate others. Loyd asks this Court to carve out an exception to the rape shield statute, Ala.Code 1975, § 12-21-203; to overturn Webb v. State, 455 So.2d 223 (Ala.Cr.App.1984); and to allow this evidence to be admitted.

In our opinion, the evidence Loyd sought to introduce is admissible, not because it constitutes an exception to the rape shield statute, but, rather, because it falls outside the scope of that statute. That statute was not intended to prevent the admission of this kind of testimony. Alabama's rape shield statute, Ala.Code 1975, § 12-21-203, provides, in part:

"(b) In any prosecution for criminal sexual conduct or for assault with intent to commit, attempt to commit or conspiracy to commit criminal sexual conduct, evidence relating to the past sexual behavior of the complaining witness, as defined in subsection (a) of this section, shall not be admissible, either as direct evidence or on cross-examination of the complaining witness or of other witnesses, except as otherwise provided in this section.

"(c) In any prosecution for criminal sexual conduct, evidence relating to the past sexual behavior of the complaining witness shall be introduced if the court, following the procedure described in subsection (d) of this section, finds that such past sexual behavior directly involved the participation of the accused."

While this statute is intended to protect the victim and prevent the defendant from shifting the focus of the trial to the victim's past sexual conduct, the evidence that Loyd sought to introduce in this case did not inquire into the areas of protection that this statute provides. Loyd sought to introduce evidence of prior occasions when the complaining witness either falsely accused someone of sexual misconduct or threatened such an accusation. Loyd did not seek to introduce any evidence of the sexual behavior or past sexual conduct of the complaining witness, but, rather, sought to introduce evidence of the witness's behavior in either falsely accusing someone or threatening an accusation as part of a common plan designed to achieve her wishes. Such evidence of false accusations or charges of sexual misconduct by...

To continue reading

Request your trial
11 cases
  • McWilliams v. State
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals
    • August 23, 1991
    ... ...         "Applying the principles of the capital case of Ex parte Hays, 518 So.2d 768 (Ala.1986), we find it extremely improbable that the additional time for preparation requested by the defendant would have ... See Ringer v. State, 489 So.2d 646, 652 (Ala.Cr.App.1986); Loyd v. State, 580 So.2d 1370 (Ala.Cr.App.1990), reversed on other grounds, 580 So.2d 1374 (Ala.1991); Hollingsworth v. State, 549 So.2d 110 ... ...
  • State v. Wyrick
    • United States
    • Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals
    • May 4, 2001
    ... ... to a general credibility attack on the basis of an unrelated incident and there was no convincing proof that the accusation was false); Ex parte Lloyd, 580 So. 2d 1374, 1376 (Ala. 1991) (holding that defendant could cross-examine victim about admittedly false prior charges and threats ... ...
  • Morris v. Morris
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Civil Appeals
    • December 6, 2013
    ...Matthew, especially considering that they were the only two witnesses to the event that had led to her broken leg. In Ex parte Loyd, 580 So.2d 1374 (Ala.1991), our supreme court ruled that a defendant who had been convicted of sodomy had been prejudiced during his trial by not being permitt......
  • Brownlee v. State
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals
    • October 23, 2015
    ... ... See Rule 16.1(e), Ala. R.Crim. P. See also Ex parte Key, 890 So.2d 1056, 1064 (Ala.2003) ([A]n inculpatory statement made by a prosecution witness is not discoverable under Rule 16, Ala. R.Crim. P.) ... See Ex parte Loyd, 580 So.2d 1374, 137576 (Ala.1991). However, only when it has been shown that the witness's prior charges were false [is] the fact of their having ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT