State v. Long

140 S.W.3d 27 (Mo. 2004) · Supreme Court of Missouri · July 1, 2004 · No. SC 85620

Summary

The Supreme Court of Missouri held that a criminal defendant may, in appropriate circumstances, introduce extrinsic evidence of a witness's prior knowingly false allegations. The court adopted a legal-relevance balancing test and a preponderance-of-the-evidence standard for establishing admissibility. It reversed Jeffrey D. Long's convictions for forcible rape and forcible sodomy and remanded for a new trial.

Court
Supreme Court of Missouri
Writing for the Court
Richard B. Teitelman; White, C.J.; Wolff, J.; Stith, J.; Price, J.; Limbaugh, J.; Benton, J.
Jurisdiction
Missouri
Decision date
July 1, 2004
Docket number
SC 85620
Procedural posture
Long appealed his convictions for forcible rape and forcible sodomy, challenging the exclusion of testimony offered to show that the victim had previously made false allegations of assault.
Standard of review
Abuse of discretion for the trial court's evidentiary ruling; constitutional review of whether the exclusion impaired the defendant's right to present a full defense.
Precedential value
Published en banc opinion of the Supreme Court of Missouri; precedential.
Parties
Jeffrey D. Long v. State of Missouri
Disposition
reversed_and_remanded

Topics

impeachmentevidencerelevancecriminal procedureappellate procedure

Practice areas

criminal lawevidenceappellate procedureconstitutional law

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by excluding extrinsic evidence that the prosecuting witness had previously made false allegations of physical or sexual assault.
  2. Whether Missouri law permits a criminal defendant, in appropriate circumstances, to use extrinsic evidence to prove a witness's prior knowingly false allegations.
  3. What foundational and relevance requirements govern the admission of extrinsic evidence of prior false allegations.
  4. Whether exclusion of the proffered evidence prejudiced Long's constitutional right to present a full defense.

Holdings

  1. A criminal defendant in Missouri may, in some cases, introduce extrinsic evidence that a witness previously made false allegations; the categorical Missouri rule barring such evidence does not adequately protect the defendant's constitutional right to present a full defense when the evidence concerns a crucial, noncollateral issue.
  2. The fundamental admissibility requirement is legal relevance: the trial court must balance the probative value of the knowingly made prior false allegation against potential prejudice and other evidentiary costs.
  3. The defendant must establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the prosecuting witness previously made a knowingly false allegation.
  4. The trial court abused its discretion and prejudiced Long by excluding the proffered evidence of the victim's prior false allegations.
  5. Although a defendant should normally first cross-examine the witness about the prior allegations, Long's failure to do so did not bar admission because the trial court had already ruled the subject matter irrelevant, making further cross-examination likely futile.

Key quotations

Therefore, a criminal defendant in Missouri may, in some cases, introduce extrinsic evidence of prior false allegations. (31)
Therefore, the fundamental requirement for admitting extrinsic evidence of a prior false allegation should be a showing of legal relevance in which the trial court must balance the probative value of the knowingly made prior false allegation with the potential prejudice. (32)
The preponderance of the evidence standard is consistent with other foundational requirements 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. (32)

Factual background

Long was convicted of forcible rape and forcible sodomy arising from an alleged assault in his apartment. The victim's testimony was central to the State's case, while there was no physical evidence linking Long to the assault and no other witness testified that Long sexually assaulted the victim. Long offered testimony from three witnesses that the victim had previously made false allegations of physical or sexual assault and later recanted them, but the trial court excluded the evidence as irrelevant and improper character evidence.

Procedural history

A Missouri trial court convicted Long of forcible rape and forcible sodomy and excluded three witnesses' testimony concerning the victim's alleged prior false accusations. The Supreme Court of Missouri held that the exclusion deprived Long of a full opportunity to present his defense, reversed the judgment, and remanded for a new trial. The court did not reach Long's other appellate claims because a new trial was granted.

Remand instructions

Remand for a new trial at which Long must have an opportunity to establish the admissibility of extrinsic evidence concerning the victim's prior false allegations under the announced relevance and foundational requirements.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…