State v. Long
Decision Date | 01 July 2004 |
Docket Number | No. SC 85620.,SC 85620. |
Citation | 140 S.W.3d 27 |
Parties | STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Jeffrey D. LONG, Appellant. |
Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Appeal from the Circuit Court, Clay County, Michael J. Maloney, J Craig A. Johnston, Office of the State Public Defender, Columbia, MO, for Appellant.
Jeremiah W.(Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Richard A. Starnes, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, MO, for Respondent.
Jeffrey D. Long was convicted of one count of forcible rape, section 566.030, RSMo 2000,1 and one count of forcible sodomy, section 566.060.The trial court abused its discretion by prohibiting Long from introducing evidence of prior false allegations by the victim.The judgment is reversed and the case is remanded.
According to the state's evidence, the victim went to Long's apartment with Chris Manning.Once at Long's apartment, all three began drinking.At some point, Long and Manning beat and sexually assaulted the victim and then forced her out of Long's apartment and into a hallway.She remained there until the next morning because she was afraid and in pain.She then walked to a nearby grocery store, where a security guard called a taxi for her.She went home, bathed, and tried to recover from the assault.
A few days later, she reported the incident to police.A medical examination revealed bruising, rectal trauma, and vaginal tears and abrasions consistent with a sexual assault.Although there was substantial physical evidence that the victim had been assaulted, a police search of Long's apartment recovered no evidence indicating the victim had been assaulted there.There was no physical evidence linking Long to the assault.Long denied assaulting the victim.There were no other witnesses.
In order to rebut the victim's allegations, Long attempted to introduce testimony from three witnesses via offers of proof.In the first offer of proof, Timothy Wilson testified that the victim had told the police that he had physically assaulted her by hitting her on the head with a rock.Wilson also testified that, on another occasion, the victim had told police that he had threatened her with harm.The neighbor testified that both allegations were false.
In the second offer of proof, a police detective testified that the victim alleged that Wilson had threatened her.The detective testified that the victim later called her and said that Wilson was not the man who threatened her.
In the final offer of proof, the neighborhood property manager testified that the victim called her and accused Wilson of luring her from her home by pretending to be a security guard and then sexually assaulting her.Two weeks later, the victim called the property manager and recanted her story.
The trial court excluded the testimony in each offer of proof, concluding that it was irrelevant and not "proper character evidence."Long's attorney did not cross-examine the victim regarding these prior allegations.
In his first point on appeal,2 Long argues that the trial court abused its discretion in excluding the testimony of the three witnesses who said that the victim had made previous false allegations of sexual or physical assault.Long maintains that the excluded testimony was central to his defense that the victim had falsely accused him of assaulting her.3The state argues that the proffered testimony was inadmissible as an improper attempt to prove the victim's untruthfulness with extrinsic evidence of specific acts of misconduct.
Missouri law allows a party to attack the credibility of witness by demonstrating the witnesses' bad character for truth and veracity.John C. O'Brien, MISSOURI LAW OF EVIDENCE, section 5-7(3d ed.1996).While a party may cross-examine the witness regarding specific acts of misconduct relating to credibility, these prior acts may not be proven by extrinsic evidence.Rousan v. State,48 S.W.3d 576, 590(Mo. banc 2001).Thus, when a defendant cross-examines a witness about prior misconduct, the defendant is "bound by the witness' answer" and "cannot offer evidence to the contrary, unless, of course, the character of the witness has been put in issue on direct examination."State v. Williams,492 S.W.2d 1, 4(Mo.App.1973).
The bar on extrinsic evidence of prior, specific acts of misconduct furthers the general policy focusing the fact-finder the most probative facts and conserving judicial resources by avoiding mini-trials on collateral issues.Hoffman v. Graber,153 S.W.2d 817, 820(Mo.App.1941).In some cases, however, the rule excluding extrinsic evidence of prior false allegations fails to serve this purpose by shielding the fact-finder not from collateral issues, but from a central issue in the case.An issue is not collateral if it is a "crucial issue directly in controversy."State v. Williams,849 S.W.2d 575, 578(Mo.App.1993).Where, as in this case, a witness' credibility is a key factor in determining guilt or acquittal, excluding extrinsic evidence of the witnesses' prior false allegations deprives the fact-finder of evidence that is highly relevant to a crucial issue directly in controversy; the credibility of the witness.An evidentiary rule rendering non-collateral, highly relevant evidence inadmissible must yield to the defendant's constitutional right to present a full defense.Mo. Const. art. 1, section 18(a).
To remedy this problem, several jurisdictions allow defendants to introduce extrinsic evidence to prove that a victim has previously made false allegations.4Although the exact rationales for and restrictions on the admissibility of such evidence varies, the common theme is a concern for striking the appropriate balance between avoiding misguided focus on collateral issues while allowing the accused to fully defend against the charge.
The current Missouri rule prohibiting extrinsic evidence of prior false allegations does not strike the appropriate balance.Therefore, a criminal defendant in Missouri may, in some cases, introduce extrinsic evidence of prior false allegations.This rule is not limited to sexual assault or rape cases.
Having determined that extrinsic evidence of prior false allegations may be admissible, the requirements for establishing admissibility must be defined.In cases involving rape or sexual assault, most states require trial courts to make a preliminary determination, outside the presence of the jury, that (1) the victim made another allegation of rape or sexual assault; (2) this allegation was false; and, (3) the victim knew the allegation was false.Morgan v. State,54 P.3d 332, 337(Alaska App.2002).
While the second and third requirements are sound, the first is not.Prior false allegations are relevant to the witness' credibility.The relevance of the prior false allegation is thus derived primarily from the fact that the allegation was false and not entirely from the subject matter of the prior false allegation.The rule limiting the inquiry to prior false allegations that are the same as the charged offense erroneously focuses the relevance analysis entirely upon the subject matter of the allegation and ignores the fact from which relevance to witness credibility is derived; the fact that the allegation was false.Therefore, the fundamental requirement for admitting extrinsic evidence of a prior false allegation should be a showing of legal relevance5 in which the trial court must balance the probative value of the knowingly made prior false allegation with the potential prejudice.Of course, similarities between the prior false allegation and the charged offense as well as circumstances under which the allegation was made all factor into the relevance analysis.A prior false allegation could be so remote in time or made under circumstances so dissimilar to the charged offense that the prejudice outweighs the probative value.As with any other relevancy ruling, trial courts retain wide discretion in determining the legal relevance of prior false allegations.
Most states require a defendant to establish that the prosecuting witness previously made knowingly false allegations either by a preponderance of the evidence or by clear and convincing evidence.Morgan,54 P.3d at 338.The preponderance of the evidence standard is consistent with other foundational requirements6 for admitting or excluding evidence in Missouri and is, therefore, the applicable standard for determining whether a defendant has established that the prosecuting witness previously made knowingly false allegations.As in other cases, the defendant may rely upon the full panoply of available evidence for establishing admissibility.Documents, witnesses and other such evidence may be admissible to demonstrate the relevance of prior false allegations.
The facts of this case indicate that Long is entitled to an opportunity to establish the admissibility of extrinsic evidence regarding the victim's prior false allegations.7The prosecuting witness testified that Long assaulted her.Long denies doing so.No other witnesses testified that Long sexually assaulted the victim.There was no physical evidence linking Long to the assault on the victim.The jury's assessment of the relative credibility of Long and the prosecuting witness was the key to Long's conviction, thereby enhancing the relevance of prior false allegations.Under these circumstances, excluding evidence of prior false allegations was prejudicial because the Long was deprived of a full opportunity to present his defense that the witness was fabricating the present allegations against him.
The judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded for a new trial.8
PRICE, J., dissents in separate opinion filed.
LIMBAUGH, J., dissents in separate opinion filed.
I agree with the second and...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 7-day Trial
-
Childs v. State
...Murray concerned only the admissibility of specific instances of prior consensual sexual contact between the complaining witness and the defendant under section 491.015, RSMo, the "rape shield" law, where the defense was consent. 842 S.W.2d at 123-26.
Longand Murray are inapposite to this Because the evidence that Childs sought to introduce was inadmissible, he suffered no prejudice from his defense counsel's failure to make a proper offer of proof.1 The circuit courtconsideration" in a case, "evidence of specific instances of the complaining witness's prior conduct can be admitted to show that the witness's later conduct was in conformance with her prior conduct." To support his argument, he cites State v. Long, 140 S.W.3d 27(Mo. banc 2004), and State v. Murray, 842 S.W.2d 122 (Mo.App.1992). Childs reads Long and Murray too broadly. Long provides only a "limited exception to the general rule of inadmissibilitylater conduct was in conformance with her prior conduct." To support his argument, he cites State v. Long, 140 S.W.3d 27 (Mo. banc 2004), and State v. Murray, 842 S.W.2d 122 (Mo.App.1992). Childs reads Longand Murray too broadly. Long provides only a "limited exception to the general rule of inadmissibility of extrinsic evidence of specific prior acts of misconduct by the victim." State v. Wilson, 256 S.W.3d 58, 59 (Mo. banc 2008).... -
State v. Wilson, No. ED 88557 (Mo. App. 7/24/2007)
...32. The Court stated certain factors, such as the similarities between the prior false allegation and the charged offense and the circumstances surrounding the allegation should be taken into account when determining legal relevance.
Id. at 31. The Court directed the trial court to continue to balance the probative value of the prior false allegation with the potential prejudice, recognizing such allegations could be "so remote in time or made under circumstances so dissimilardefendant's conviction and remanded for a new trial, holding the defendant was deprived of a full opportunity to present his defense when evidence of the victim's prior false allegations was excluded from evidence when her credibility was directly at issue. Id. at 32. The Court stated certain factors, such as the similarities between the prior false allegation and the charged offense and the circumstances surrounding the allegation should be taken into account when determining legal relevance.probative value of the prior false allegation with the potential prejudice, recognizing such allegations could be "so remote in time or made under circumstances so dissimilar to the charged offense that the prejudice outweighs the probative value." Id. at 31-32. Prior to trial, the State filed a motion in limine seeking exclusion of "any specific bad acts of [the victim] as used for impeachment." The trial court granted this motion, but allowed defense counsel to make an offer of proof... -
State v. Ridenour
...Long was permitted to introduce the testimony of three witnesses who said that the victim had made previous false allegations of sexual or physical assault, because such extrinsic evidence was relevant to the central issue of victim's credibility.7
Id. at 30–31. The court in Mitchell, 313 S.W.3d at 680, explained that “[t]he difficulty with this approach is that it does not assist litigants or the courts in defining when credibility is to be considered central and thereforeprior statement or specific instance of conduct only if the subject of the impeachment is material to the issues rather than collateral.6 Mitchell, 313 S.W.3d at 679–80 (internal citations omitted). For example, in Long, 140 S.W.3d at 30, our high court approved of an exception to the bar on extrinsic evidence “of nominally nonmaterial issues.” Mitchell, 313 S.W.3d at 680. The defendant in Long was permitted to introduce the testimony of three witnesses(internal citations omitted). For example, in Long, 140 S.W.3d at 30, our high court approved of an exception to the bar on extrinsic evidence “of nominally nonmaterial issues.” Mitchell, 313 S.W.3d at 680. The defendant in Longwas permitted to introduce the testimony of three witnesses who said that the victim had made previous false allegations of sexual or physical assault, because such extrinsic evidence was relevant to the central issue of victim's credibility.7Id.... -
State v. Alberts
...similar to our rule 5.608, some jurisdictions carve out a special exception and allow the use of extrinsic evidence to contradict the complaining witness's answer with respect to a prior false accusation. Compare
State v. Long, 140 S.W.3d 27, 31 (Mo.2004)(allowing a criminal defendant to introduce extrinsic evidence of prior false allegations "in some cases") and Morgan v. State, 54 P.3d 332, 336 (Alaska Ct.App.2002) (allowing a criminal defendant to both cross-examine...
-
Section 11.10 Use of Extrinsic Evidence to Impeach
...and veracity, it will be the unusual case where [the balance] weighs in favor of admission of extrinsic evidence.” Id. at 682. But when the balance is tipped, the extrinsic evidence should be admitted. The Court cited State v. Long,
140 S.W.3d 27, 30–31 (Mo. banc 2004) (defendant allowed to introduce “the testimony of three witnesses who said that the victim had made previous false allegations of sexual or physical assault,” finding that it was relevant to the credibility of the witness),... -
Section 1.6 Confrontation Clause and Impeachment Evidence
...must yield when (1) a prosecuting witness’s credibility is a key factor in determining guilt and (2) excluding evidence of the witness’s prior false accusations would deprive the fact-finder of highly relevant evidence. State v. Long,
140 S.W.3d 27(Mo. banc 2004). This interpretation of the Confrontation Clause is broader than that reached in other states. The Long Court rejected a rule that would only allow evidence of prior false allegations when the witness’s prior allegations... -
§608 Cross-examination and the Use of Extrinsic Evidence to Impeach a Witness's Character for Truth and Veracity
...background that he found embarrassing. This reflects on the credibility of his testimony at trial about what he told [the plaintiff] and whether his testimony was accurate or was offered instead to avoid embarrassment.") · State v. Long ,
140 S.W.3d 27, 30–31 (Mo. banc 2004) (referred to in Mitchell as a case in which the balancing weighs in favor of admission of extrinsic evidence—extrinsic evidence that the victim had made prior false allegations of sexual or physical assault should have... -
Section 10.6 Evidence of Character and Conduct of Witnesses
...48 S.W.3d 576 (Mo. banc 2001). But the Supreme Court of Missouri crafted an exception to this rule that applies when the subject of the extrinsic evidence is a “crucial issue directly in controversy.” State v. Long,
140 S.W.3d 27, 30 (Mo. banc. 2004). In Long, the Court found that extrinsic evidence of prior false allegations was admissible because it was relevant to the central issue of witness credibility. Id. (cited by Mitchell). Extrinsic evidence may be used to show...