Ha mm e r v . S tate , 2 56 S.W. 3d

39 1 ( Te x. Ap p. —Sa

n Anto nio 20 08 ). Ap pe lla nt’ s so le 1 gro un d f or re vie w i s a s f

oll ow s: The c ourt of appe als incorr ectly deter mined an important issue of state and fe dera l law by decidingthat the trial cour t did not abuse its discretion by excluding impeachme nt evidenceof complaina nt’s previous fa lse alleg ations of sexual assault and suc h exclusion vi olated petitioner’ s rights under the Confr ontation 

## IN THE COU RT O F CR IM IN AL AP PE ALS

OF TE XAS N O . P D - 0786- 08
M U R R A Y H A M M ER , A ppe l l ant

v . THE S TA TE OF TE X AS ON APP ELLANT ’ S PET I TI ON FOR DI S CRETI ON ARY REVI EW

FROM THE FOURTH CO URT O F AP PEALS

W I LS ON CO UNTY C OCHRAN , J . , d eli v er ed th e o p inion o f the u n a n im o u s C o u rt. OP I NI ON A ppel l antcl ai m s t hatt he cour t of appea l s er r ed w hen i t hel d t hat t he t r i al cour t di d not abus e i t s d iscret i on i n excl udi ng evi dence t hatt he compl ai nanti n t hi s pr os ecut i on for in d e c e n c yw ith a c h ild h a d p re v io u sly m a d e a f a lse a c c u sa tio n o f

“ ra p e .” W e a g re e w ith

1Hammer Pag e 2

Cla us e of theUn ite d St ate s Co ns tit uti on . T he c ourt

of a pp e a ls’ op ini on

is i n direc t contradic tion with the First Court of Appea ls in it s decision in Thomas v. Sta te , 669 S.W .2d 420 (Tex. App.—Houston [1 Dist.] 1984, pet. re f’d) , in that st the fourth c ourt finds the alleg ations which complaina nt fabric ated a

re dissimilar to the offe nses [with] which petitioner is cha rg ed. appel l antt hatt he t r i al j udge abus ed herdi s cr et i on i n excludi ng s om e of t he evi dence appel l antoffe r ed t o demonst r at e t he compl ai nant ’ s m ot ive to f al s el yacc us e hi m of
m ol es t at i on. W e t her efor e r ever s e t he j udgm ent and r emand t hi s cas e forfur t herpr ocee di ngs i n the cou rtof ap peals
. I
. T he evi dence att r i al s how ed thatfi ft een- y ear - ol d P. H
. m oved t o Fl or es vi l l e t o l i ve
w it h h er g ran d m o ther a n d h er f athe r–a p p ell an t–af

ter C P S rem o v ed h er f

rom h er m o the r’s hom e i n J une 2005. P. H
. w as a t r oubl ed t een- ager w ho had l ong been unde r C PS super vi s i on beca us e herm ot herhad drug pr obl ems. B yA u g u st o f 2 0 0 5 , s he w as t aki ng t he moods ta b iliz in g d ru g s P ro z a c a n d S e ro q u e l. T h e S e ro q u e l m a d e h e r d ro w s y , a n d s h e “ s le p t h a rd .” P. H
. t es t i fi ed t hat , i n l at e A ugus t , s h e an d appel l antvi s i t ed a f ami l yfr i end, Shonna M akut a. A ccor di ng t o P. H
. , al l t hr ee of t hem dra nk vodka. P. H
. t hen t ook herSer oquel and fel l as l eep on t he l i vi ng- r oom couch w i t h hercl ot hes on. S h e said tha t s he w oke up
s om et i m e dur i ng t he ni ght t o fi nd t hatherpant s and under w earw er e gone. A ppel l antw as stan d ing o v er h er. P.H
. g o t up , p u t her p an ts ba ck o n , an d then w e n t t o sleep in S h o n n a’s bed, w hi ch w as i n t he l i vi ng r oom . Shonna had “pa s s ed out ” and w as s l eepi ng i n an upr i ght chai r nextt o t he couc h. P. H
. s ai d t hat s he w oke up a sec ond t i m e t o fi nd appel l anti n t he bed,Hammer Pag e 3

“ k in d o f sp o o n in g m e a n d h e h a d h is h a n d s o n m yc ro tch .” S h e g o t u p a n d m o v e d b a c k to t he couc h. T he nextm or ni ng, P. H
. “t ol d hi m t hat I know w hathappene d and he t ol d m e t hat h e d idn ’trem em b er a n d that h e w as d run k an d h e told m e h e w as rea ll y so rry . ” S h e d idn ’t t el l any one aboutt he mol es t at i on beca us e s he knew t hatappel l anthad bee n dr i nki ng. P .H . sa id th a t, ab o u t tw o w e e k s la ter , sh e w a s sle e p in g in h e r g ra n d m o th e r’s b e d w ith hercl ot hes on. She w oke up t o fi nd appel l antbehi nd herw i t h hi s hands dow n t he fr ont of herpant s , r ubbi ng hervagi na. W hen he s aw t hatP. H
. w as aw ake, he j um ped up and l eftt he
r oom . H e w as ful l y cl ot hed. She fel l back a s l eep. L at ert hatni ght , t he s ame t hi ng happene d agai n. She got up and l ocked t he door
. T he nextm or ni ng, appel l antas ked P. H
. i f s he had
s l eptokay
. She s ai d t hats he w oke up s ev era l ti m es an d t hats he knew w hathe had done
. A p p e l l a n t s a i d t h a t h e t h o u g h t t h a t was wha t s h e wan t e d , a n d t h e n h e s t a t e d , “I f y ou ever change y our m i nd, babygir l, let m e k n ow . ” A bout a w eek l at er , P. H
. t ol d a fr i end about t he s e i nc i de nt s , a nd t ha t fr i e nd t ol d s c ho ol of fi c i a l s , w ho c a l l e d CPS. O n c ro ss -e x a m in a ti o n , P .H . sta ted th a t w h e n sh e liv e d w ith h e r m o th e r, sh e “ p re tty
m u c h ” d id w h a te v e r s h e w a n te d to . It w a s a lot diff

ere n t w h en I m o v ed w it h m yd ad b ec au se it w as m o re s t r uctur ed. I had a c ur few
. I coul dn’ t t al k on t he phone ve r yl ong, I had t o get g o o d g ra d e s in sc h o o l. I h a d to g o to d o c to r’s a p p o in tm e n ts a n d stu f f lik e th a t. She got angr yatappel l antbeca us e of t hes e new r ul es . T heyhad a l ot of fi ght s abouther sta y in g o u t late . P .H . told h im th a t sh e d id n ’t lik e th e se ru les , b u t d e n ied tellin g h im th a t if he di dn’ t l eave heral one, s he w as goi ng t o s end hi m back t o pr i s on. She al s o deni ed t el l i ngHammer Pag e 4

Shortly afte r the sexual-assa

ult ex am in July , P.H. was admitted to the state hospital 2 afte r makingsuicidal threats. The Prozac and Seroquel wer e pre scribed when she w as re lease d back into appe llant’s car e. any one t hatt hes e s exual event s di dn’ t happen. A fter P
. H
. ’s t esti m o n y , d ef en se c o u n sel req u ested a h ea ri n g o u tsi d e the jury ’s pr es ence t o r evi s i t t he t r i al j udge’ s pr et r i al r ul i ng o n the S tat e’ s m ot i on i n l i m i ne t hat excl uded al l evi dence of P. H
. ’ s pr evi ous s exual conduct
. A ppel l antexpl ai ned t hathe w ant ed t o i nt r oduce P. H
. ’ s m edi cal r ecor ds fr om a sexua l
- as s aul t exami nat i on on J ul y6, 2005 ( one
m ont h aft ers he had c om e t o l i ve w i t h appel l ant ) , i n w hi ch s he t ol d t he hos pi t al nur s e t hat I gnaci o T al amendez “s exual l y as s aul t ed” he r . She t ol d t he nur s e t hat“atfi r s t i t w as ki nd of
a cons en su al th ing butI t ol d hi m t o s t op and he ke pt goi ng. ” A ccor di ng t o t he medi cal
r e c o rd s, a p p e llan t h a d tak e n a n u n w ill in g P .H . to th e h o sp ital f o r a se x u a l-a ss a u lt
e x a m in a tio n a f

ter sh e h a d ru n a w a yf

o r tw o d a ys . P .H . told th e n u rse , “M yd a d w a n ts to pr ove t hatI had s exual i nt er cour s e w i t h one of t he guy s t hat I r an aw ayw i t h. ” The r ecor ds
s t at e t hat s he w as angr y w i t h her fat her
. T hos e re cor ds al s o s how t hat P. H
. t ol d t he nur s e of p rio r se x u a l ab u se
– th a t h e r “u n c le w o u ld p u t h is h a n d s o n g e n ital a re a , at a g e 1 3 y rs.” T h is i s t he ver ys ame conductt hatP. H
. acc us ed appe l l antof comm i t t i ng. D efe ns e couns el s t at ed t hathe had anot her w i t nes s ( Shonna M akut a) w ho w oul d s ay t hatP. H
. t ol d her , “W el l , I r eal l y w as w i t h s om eone el s e t hat I di dn’ t w antm ydad t o know about w hi ch i s w hy I bl amed I gnaci o. ” A ppel l ant ar gued, as he had att he pr et r i al hear i ng, 2 t hatt hi s evi dence w as ( 1) r el evantt o P. H
. ’ s t r ut h fu lnes s ; ( 2) r equi r ed undert heHammer Pag e 5

T EX . R. E V ID . 412 (Evidenc e of Pre vious Sex ual Conduct in Criminal Cases). 3 C on front at i on C l ause; and (3) adm i ssi ble unde r R ule 412 t o sho w P
. H
. ’s m oti ve t o accu se 3 her fat her beca us e her fat her w as t r y i ng t o s t op P. H
. ’ s “w i l d” conduc t . T he t r i al j udge s t at ed t hat“t he pr ej udici al effec t out w ei ghs t he pr obat i ve val ue” a nd r efus ed t o al l ow any im p e a c h m e n t w ith th e m e d ic a l r e c o rd s . A ppel l antthen m ad e a b il l of ex ce p ti o n s b ycro ss-ex am ining P
. H
. o u tsi d e the p res ence of t he j ur y . A t fi r s t s he deni ed t el l i ng t he hospi t al nur s e t hatt he pr i or s exual act i vi t yw as
n o n c o n se n su a l, bu t, w h e n sh o w n th e m e d ica l re c o rd s, sh e a d m itt e d th a t sh e h a d sa id th a t. She deni ed t el l i ng Shonna t hat s he had had s ex w i t h A nt hony , not I gnaci o, t he ni ght t hats he
r an aw ay . T he t r i al j udge s t at ed t hatherr ul i ng w as t he s ame, bar r i ng cr os s - exami nat i on of P
. H
. and excludi ng t he m edical recor ds. A f te r th e ju ryre tu rn e d , a C P S c a se w o rk e r a n d a C P S in v e stig a to r te stif ied to
s t at ement s t hatbot h P. H
. and appe l l anthad made t o t hem. P. H
. told t he C PS i nves t i gat or t hats he has never got t en al ong w i t h her fat her beca us e he s cr eamed atherw hen di s ci pl i ni ng her
. She al s o s t at ed t hat appel l ant t hr eat ened her and s ai d t hat i f s he ever t ol d any one about th e m o le s ta tio n s h e w o u ld g o to f o s te r c a re . S h o n n a M akut a t es t i fi ed fort he def ens e t hat , t o herknow l edge, P. H
. neverdr ank al cohol atherhous e. She s t at ed t hat , atfi r s t , s he w ant ed t o bel i eve P. H
. ’ s s t or y , but t hi ngs that P
. H
. said m ad e he r st art t o d o u b t. A p p ell an t’ s m o ther a lso testi fied an d said that P
. H
. ’s behavi or w hi l e l i vi ng at her hous e w as “get t i ng ver y bad. ” B efor e t he al l eged mol es t at i on,Hammer Pag e 6 P. H
. t ol d h er g ran d m ot hert hats he w ant ed t o be emanci pat ed fr om bot h herm ot herand fat hers o t hats he coul d be on herow n. A t t he end of

t he fi r s t day of t es t i m ony , t he def ens e r eca l l ed s ever al w i t nes s es t o m ake
a s econd bi l l of exc ept i ons out s i de t he pr es ence of t he j u ry . F ir st , appel l antr eoff er ed t he
m edi cal r ecor ds , but t he t r i al j udge s ai d t hats he had pr evi o us l yr ul ed t hatt he pr ej udi ci al
e f f e c t o u tw e ig h e d th e ir p ro b a tiv e v a lu e a n d th e re f o re sh e w a s re c e iv in g th e m o n lya s a b ill of exc ept i ons . N ext , Shonna t es t i fi ed t hatP. H
. t ol d hert hats he w as dat i ng a boynamed A nt hony and t hat her fat her w as r eal l y s t r i ct about l et t i ng hers ee hi m . P. H
. t ol d herdad t hat I g n a c i o h a d r a p e d h e r , b u t s h e h a d r e a l l yb e e n wi t h An t h o n y . S h o n n a a l s o s t a t e d t h a t P
. H. had made ot her al l egat i ons of peopl e m ol es t i ng her , i ncl udi ng her uncl e on herm ot her ’ s s i de, but s he di d not know w het her t hos e al l egat i ons w er e fa l s e. A ppel l ant ’ s m ot hert es t i fi ed t hat P. H
. t ol d hert hat“eve r y o ne of he r m ot her ’ s boy fr i ends ” had mol es t ed her
. She di d not k n o w w h e th e r th o se a lleg a tio n s w e re tru e o r no t. A p p e llan t’s m o th e r t o ld o f a n in c id e n t in
w hi ch P. H
. and hercous i n r an aw ay and cal l ed on a cel l phone t o s ay t hatt heyw er e bei ng h e l d by fi ve me n a n d t h a t t h e s e me n h a d k n i v e s t o t h e i r t h r o a t s a n d we r e r a p i n g t h e m. A p p e llan t’s m o th e r c a lled th e p o lice w h o sta rte d to p u t o u t an “ A m b e r A ler t,” b u t p u lled it back w hen t he t w o gi r l s came hom e and s ai d t hat t hey had j us t r un aw ay . M ar gar i t a H i gdon, appel l ant ’ s gi r l fr i end and t he mot herof hi s t een- aged s on, t es t i fi ed t hat , w hen P. H
. m oved i n t o h e r h o me a f

t e r a p p e l l a n t wa s a c c u s e d o f mo l e s t a t i o n , s h e h a d t o h a v e CP S r e mo v e P
. H. beca us e s chool offi ci al s cal l ed and t ol d hert hats he had be en ca ught dow n at“t he A g. bar n”Hammer Pag e 7

Neither the State, nor a

ppellant, nor the c ourt of appe als have sug g ested that a ppellant 4 failed to pre servehis claim conce rningthe excluded evidenc e. It is possi ble to interpre t the trial judge ’s statement that “ it’s hard for you to make a bill of e x ception until you know what I ’m g oing to let in and ke ep out” a s ref erring to a ll the witnesses’ testimony that had bee n proff

ere d on thebil l of

e xcepti on s. It is muc h mo relik e ly , h ow e ve r, that th e tria l ju dg e wa s r e fe rringon ly to a pp e lla nt’ s o wn te sti mony , whic h h a d n ot ye t oc c ur re d. Un de r t

he se c ir c ums tanc e s, e sp e c ia lly as neither the State nor the c ourt of appe als mentioned any possible ambiguity , we c onclude that appellant’ s claims wer e prope rly prese rved f

or re view. Ha mm e r v . S

tate , 256 S.W .3d 391, 395-96 (Te x . App.—San Antonio 2008). 5 l y i ng on t he gr ound w i t h a boy
. P. H
. had al s o t ol d M s . H i gdon t hatheruncl e had mol es t ed herw hen s he w as y oung. A f ter h e a rin g th e se w itn e ss e s, th e trial ju d g e sa id , “A n yf u rth e r p ro f

f e r o n y o u r b ill of exc ept i ons ?” C ouns el r epl i ed: “N ot hi ng m or e exc eptfr om t he defe ndanthi m s el f–he c an tes tify n o w o r to m o rro w w h e n th e ju ryis d e lib e ra tin g .” T h e trial ju d g e re sp o n d e d , “W e ll, it’s a l itt le h a rd f

o r y o u to m a k e a b ill o f e x c e p tio n u n til y o u k n o w w h a t I’m g o in g to let in and keep out . . . . So I t hi nk w e bet t er w ai t unt i l t om or r ow . ” A ppel l ant di d t es t i fyt he next d a y, b u t h i s c o u n s e l d i d n o t m a k e a n y b i l l o f e x c e p t i o n c o n c e r n i n g h i s t e s t i m o n y. 4 T he j ur y found appel l ant gui l t y of bot h count s of i ndece ncy w i t h a chi l d, and t he t r i al j udge s ent ence d hi m t o fi ft een y ear s ’ i m pr i s onm ent . O n appea l , appel l antas s er t ed t hatt he trial court err ed in excludi ng i m peach m ent evi den ce of t he co m plai nt’ s previ ou s fal se
a lleg a tio n s o f

se x u a l as sa u lt i n v io latio n o f th e C o n f ro n tatio n C lau se . T h e c o u rt o f a p p e a ls
c o n c lu d e d th a t th e e x c lu d e d tes tim o n y , inc lu d in g th e m e d ic a l re c o rd s, (1 ) w a s a “ g e n e ra l” at t ack upon P. H
. ’ s cr edi bi l i t y ; ( 2) di d not es t abl i s h t hat t he pr i or acc us at i ons w er e fa l s e; and ( 3) di d not s how t hatt he pr i or acc us at i ons w er e s i m i l art o t he ones i n t hi s cas e. 5Hammer Pag e 8

Davis v. Alask

a , 415 U.S. 308, 316 (1974). 6 De law arev . V

an Ar sd all , 475 U.S. 673, 679 (1986) (“ [T] rial judg es re tain wide 7 latitude” under

the Confrontation Clause to impose re strictions on cross-e x amination based on such criteria a s “har assment, pre judice, conf

usion of the issues, the witness’ sa fety , or int e rrog atio n th at is repe tit iveor on ly marg ina lly

re le va nt” ); Lop e

z v . S tate , 18 S.W .3d 220, 222 (T e x. Crim. Ap p. 20 00 ); Cas tle v . S tate , 748 S.W .2d 230, 233 (Tex. Crim. App. 1988) (“G ener ally , the scope of cross-examination is within the control of the trial court a nd in the e xer c iseof

its own d isc re tio n. ” ); Tole r v . S tate , 546 S.W .2d 290, 295 (Tex. Crim. App. 1977). See U nited States v. Sche

ffer , 523 U.S. 303, 316 (1998) (discussingsever al of the 8 Court’s prior holding s conce rningthe unconstitutional ex clusion of def ense e videnceand stating that those ca ses did not “signal any diminuti on in the respe ct traditionally acc orded to the States in the establishment and implementation of their own criminal trial rule s and proc edure s.”); Po tie r v . S

tate , 68 S.W .3d 657, 660-62 (Te x . Crim. App. 2002) (discussingSupreme Court ca ses and statingthat they

“show that the e x clusion of re levant, material, important evidenc e by the application of pa

rticular r ules that arearbitra

ry or disproportionate to their purposes may

offe nd the Constitut ion. They

also show that cour

ts are f reeto apply

evidentiar

y rules that ar e not arbitra ry and unjustified.”) . As we e x plained in Potier , there aretwo distinct scenarios in which ruling s excluding a de fenda nt’s evidenc e might rise to the level of a constitutional violation: (1) a state evide ntiary

rule whic h cate g orica lly

and ar bitrarily prohibits the defe ndant from of fering oth e rw isere le va

nt, re lia blee vid e nc e wh ic h is vit a l to his de fe ns e ; and (2 ) a tria l c ourt ’s c le arl y erroneous rulingexcluding other wise re levant, re liable evidenc e which “ forms such a vital portion of the ca se that exclusion effe ctively prec ludes the def

endant f rom prese nting a

defe nse.” In the first categ ory , the constitutional infirmity is in the arbitrar

y rule of e videnceitself. In the se c on d c ate g or

y , th e e vid e nti ary

ru le its e lf

is a pp ro priate , b ut t

he tria l c ourt

e rron e ou sly

a pp lie s it II. A . G en eral C on st i tuti on al and E viden ti ary C on si d erati on s. T he Si xt h A m endment r i ght t o confr ont w i t nes s es i ncl udes t he r i ght t o cr os s - exami ne
w i t nes ses t o at t ack t hei r gener al cr edi bi l i t yor t o s how t hei r pos s i bl e bi as , s el f- i nt er es t , or
m ot i ves i n t es t i fy i ng. T hi s r i ght i s not unqual i fied , h ow ever ; t he t r i al j udge has w i de 6 d isc re tio n in lim iti n g th e sc o p e a n d e x ten t o f c ro ss -e x a m in a tio n . G e n e r a ll y, th e rig h t to 7 pr es entevi dence and to cr os s - exami ne w i t nes s es undert he Si xt h A m endment does not confl i ctw i t h t he cor r es pondi ng r i ght s unders t at e evi dent i ar yr ul es . T hus , m os t ques t i ons 8Hammer Pag e 9

to exclude admissible evidenceto such an e x tent that it effe ctively preve nts the defe ndant from prese nting his def

ensive theor

y . Id. at 663-65. T EX . R. E V ID . 1 01 (c ) ( Hi e ra rc hic a l G ov e rn anc e in C ri min a l Proc e e din g s) ; see Lopez , 18 9 S.W .3d at 220 (“ We have pr eviously indicated that the Confrontation Clause will prevail if ther e is a conflict be tween it and theRules of Evidence .”). See, e .g., Lopez , 1 8 S. W.3 d at 22 7 ( Ke lle r, J., c on c ur ri ng ) (no tin gthat, whil e c re dib ili ty 10 is no more important in sex offenses than other case s, it “is more likely

to be the on ly

fa c tor in sex cases than it is in other ty pes of c ases”in which “onecan e x pect c orrobor atingevidenc e”; thu s th e Rul e 40 3 b a lanc inga pp ro a c h w ou ld m os t of

te n re nd e r e vid e nc e of

prior fa lse conce r ni ng cr os s - exami nat i on m aybe r es ol ved by l ooki ng t o t he Texas R ul es of Evi dence
. I n t hos e r ar e s i t uat i ons i n w hi ch t he appl i cabl e rul e of e vi dence confl i ct s w i t h a fe der al
c o n stitu tio n a l rig h t, R u le 1 0 1 (c ) re q u ire s tha t th e C o n stitu tio n o f th e U n ited S tate s c o n tro ls
overt he evi dent i ar yr ul e. R ul e 101(c ) al s o s t at es , “W her e pos s i bl e, i ncons i s t encyi s t o be 9
rem ov ed b yreas on able const ruct i on ” as w el l as b y reas on able ap pli cat i on of the rul e. T hu s,
c o m p lian c e w it h th e re a so n a b le c o n stru c tio n a n d a p p lica tio n o f a ru le o f e v id e n c e w ill , in
m os t i ns t ance s , avoi d a cons t i t ut i onal ques t i on. T r i al s i nvol vi ng s exual as s aul t m ayr ai s e par t i cul arevi dent i ar yand cons t i tuti onal
conce r ns beca us e t he cr edi bi l i t yof bot h t he compl ai nantand defe ndanti s a ce nt r al , oft en di s pos i t i ve, i s s ue. Sexual as s aul t cas es ar e fr equent l y “he sa i d, s he sai d” t r i al s i n w hi ch t he j ur y m us t r eac h a unani m ous ver di ctbas ed s ol el yupon t w o di amet r i cal l ydi ffe r entver s i ons of an e vent , unai ded by any phy s i cal , s ci ent i fi c, or ot her cor r obor at i ve evi dence
. T hus , t he R u le s o f E v id e n c e , es p e c iallyR u le 4 0 3 , sh o u ld b e u se d sp a rin g lyto e x c lu d e re lev a n t, ot her w i s e admi s s i bl e evi dence t hatm i ght bearupon t he cr edi bi l i t yof ei t hert he defenda nt or compl ai nanti n s uch “he s ai d, s he s ai d” ca s es . A nd T exas law , as w ell as t he fe der al 10Hammer Pag e 10

acc usations admissible in such cases)
. Se e, e .g., Ri c ha rd

so n v . S tate , 744 S.W .2d 65, 79 (Tex. Crim. App. 1987) (noting that 11 both under Te x as law a

nd Davis v. Alask

a , “the a ccuse d is give n great latitude in showing a ny fac t which would tend to establish ill feeling , bias, or motive for f abric ation on the par

t of any witness testifying a g ainst the ac cused.” ), vacate d on other grounds , 492 U.S. 914 (1989); Go nzale s v . S tate , 929 S.W .2d 546, 549 (Tex. App.—Austin 1996, pet. ref ’d) ( “The rules of evidenc e grant a

party greater latitude to provea witness’s bias tha n to prove a

witness’s untruthful char acte r”; [curre nt Rule 613] “plac es no limits on the sort of e videncethat may be adduce d to show a witness’s bias or interest”)
. Davis v. Alask

a , 415 U.S. 308 (1973). 12 Da v is , 415 U.S. at 316. In Da v is, Richard Gr een, a “cr ucial” w itness for the 13 prosec ution in it s burg lary caseag ainst Davis, was himself on juve nile probation for burg lary
. The de fensewanted to impea ch him with that probation status to show that he had a strong motive to shift the potential blame for the c harg ed burg lary from himself to the def

endant. The defe nse had spe cifica lly

not offer ed this impeachme nt evidenceas an attack upon the witness’ s g e ne ra l c re dib ili ty ; in ste a d, c ouns e l e xpla ine d th at hi s th e or y wa s th at Gr e e n a c te d o ut o f f

e ar o r c on c e rn

of po ssibleje op ard

y to h is p ro batio n. No t on ly might Gr een ha

ve madea hasty

and fa ulty identification of [Davis] to shi ft suspicion away

from himself as onewho robbe d the Polar B ar, but Gr een might have be en subjec t to undue pressurefrom the policeand madehis identification under f ear of possible probation re vocation. Gr een’ s rec ord would be r evea led on ly a s n e c e ssa

ry to p ro be Gr e e n f

or bia s a nd pr e judic e and

no t g e ne ra lly

to c a ll Gre en’s g ood char acte r into question. Id. at 311. con st i t uti on , requi res great l at i t ud e w hen t he ev i den ce dea l s w i t h a w i t ness’ s speci fi c bias , m ot i ve, or i nt er es t t o t es t i fyi n a par t i cul arfas hi on. 11 B ut , as t he Supr eme Court not ed i n D a v is v. A l as ka , t her e i s an i m por t antdi s t i nct i on 12 bet w een a n at t ack on t he gene r al cr edi bi l i t yof a w i t nes s and a m o r e par t i cul arat t ack on
cr edi bi l i t yt hatr evea l s “pos s i bl e bi as es , pr ej udi ces , or ul t er i or m ot i ves of t he w i t nes s as t hey
m ay relate d ir ec tl y to i ssu es or pe rson ali ti es in the c ase at ha n d
. ” T h u s, u n d er D a v is , “t he 13 expos ur e of a w i t nes s ’ m ot i vat i on i n t es t i fy i ng i s a pr operand i m por t antfunct i on of t heHammer Pag e 11

Id. at 316. 14 Id. at 321 (Stewa

rt, J ., concur

ring ). 15 Po tie r v . S

tate , 6 8 S. W.3 d 6 57 , 6 63 -6 5 ( Te x. Crim. Ap p. 20 02 ); W ile yv . S tate , 74 16 S.W .3d 399, 405 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002). T EX . R. E V ID . 608(a) (1) ( “The cre dibility of a w itness may

be attac ked or suppor

ted by 17 evidenc e in the for

m of opinion or reputation, but subj ect to these limit ations: (1) the e vidence may ref er only to char acte r for

truthfulness or untruthfulne ss”). cons t i t ut i onal l ypr ot ect ed r i ght of cr os s - exami nat i on. ” H ow ever , as J us t i ce St ew ar t not ed 14 in c o n c u rre n c e , the C o u rt n e ith e r h e ld n o r su g g e ste d th a t th e C o n stitu tio n c o n f e rs a rig h t to i m peac h t he gener alcredi bil i t yof a w i t ness t hroug h o t herw i se prohi bit ed m o d es of crossexami nat i on. T hus , t he D a v is C o u rt d id n o t h o ld th a t a d e f e n d a n t h a s a n a b so lu te 15
cons t i t u t i o n a l r i g h t t o i mpe a c h t h e g e n e r a l c r e d i b i l i t y o f a wi t n e s s i n a n y f a s h i o n t h a t he
c h o o se s. B u t th e c o n stitu tio n is o f f e n d e d if th e sta te e v id e n tiary ru le w o u ld p ro h ib it h im fr om cr os s - exami ni ng a w i t nes s conce r ni ng pos s i bl e m ot i ves , bi as , and pr ej udi ce t o s uch an
e x t e n t t h a t h e c o u l d n o t p r e s e n t a v i t a l d e f e n s i v e t h e o r y. 16 U nder R ul e 404(a ) ( 3) of t he T exas R ul es of Evi dence , a def endantm ayal w ay s offe r
e v id e n c e o f a p e rtin e n t ch a ra c ter tra it– su c h a s tru th f u ln e ss
– o f

a n yw itn e ss . B u t, un d e r R u le 608 t he w i t nes s ’ s gener al char act er for t r ut hful nes s m aybe s how n onl yt hr ough r eput at i on 17
or opi ni on t es t i m ony . A w i t nes s ’ s gener al char act er for t r ut hful nes s or cr edi bi l i t ym aynot be at t acke d bycr os s - exami ni ng hi m ( o ro f f e r i n g e x tr i n s i c evi dence ) conce r ni ng s peci fi c pr i or i ns t ance s of unt r ut hful nes s . For exampl e, t he defe ns e m ay not as k t he w i t nes s : D i dn’ t y ou
c h e a t o n y o u r in c o m e tax las t y e a r? D id n ’t y o u lie o n T u e sd a ya b o u t h a v in g a n a f f a ir w ithHammer Pag e 12

T EX . R. E V ID . 6 08 (b ) ( “ Spe c if ic ins tanc e s o f t

he c on du c t of

a wi tne ss, fo r t

he purp os e 18 of atta c kin gor

su pp or tin gthewi tne ss' c re dib ili ty , o the r t ha n c onvic tio n o f c ri me a s p ro vid e d in Rul e 60 9, may

no t beinq

uir e d into o n c ro ss- e xami natio n o f t he wi tne ss n or

pr ov e d b y

e xtri ns ic evidenc e.”)
. T EX . R. E V ID . 6 13 (b ). Th e ru le re a ds : 19 Ex am ining

W itn ess C on c e rn ing

Bi as or In te re st . In impeachinga witness by proof of circ umstances or

statements showingbias or intere st on the part of suc h witness, and bef

ore f urther c ross-examination conce rning , or extrinsic evidence of , s uc h b ia s o r i nte re st m ay be a llo we d, thec ir c ums tanc e s su pp or tin gsu c h c la im or thede ta ils of

su c h s tate me nt, inc ludingthec onte nts and wh e re , whe n a

nd to whom made, must be madeknown to the witness, and the w itness must be give n an opportunity

to expl ain or to deny

such circ umstances or

statement. I f written, thewriti ngne e d n ot b e sh own to thewi tne ss at th at ti me , b ut o n r e qu e st the same shall be shown to opposingcounsel. I f the witness une quivocally admits such bias or intere st, ex trinsic evidenc e of same shall not be admitted. A pa rty shall be pe rm itt e d to pr e se nt e vid e nc e rebutti ngany e vid e nc e imp e a c hin gon e of sa id pa rt y ’s wi tne sse s o n gro un ds of bia s o r i nte re st. y our bos s ? D i dn’ t y ou s t eal fi ve dol l ar s fr om t he chur ch col l ect i on pl at e l as t w eek a nd t hen l i e t o t he pr i es t abouti t ? W hi l e al l of t hos e ques t i ons at t ack t he w i t nes s ’ s gener al char act er f o r tru th f u ln e ss , tha t m o d e o f im p e a c h m e n t is sp e c if ica llyb a rre d b yR u le 6 0 8 (b ). O u r sta te 18 evi dent i ar yr ul es fr ow n on unnece s s ar ychar act eras s as s i nat i on. H o w e v e r, th e ru les o f

e v id e n c e d o p e rm it a w itn e ss to b e c ro ss -e x a m in e d o n sp e c if ic i ns t ance s of conduct w hen t hey ar e us ed t o es t abl i s h hi s s peci fi c bi as , s el f- i nt er es t , or m ot i ve f o r te stif y in g . U n d e r R u le 6 1 3 (b ), th e o p p o n e n t m u st f irst c ro ss -e x a m in e th e w itn e ss w ith t he ci r cumst ance s s ur r oundi ng t he bi as, in terest , or m ot i ve, and, i f t he w i t nes s deni es t he ci rcum s t ance s or t he mot i ve, t he opponentm ayi nt r oduce e xt r i ns i c evi dence t o pr ove t he
m ot i ve orbi as . Fur t her m or e, R ul e 404( b) ex p li cit l yper m i t s t he def ens e, as w el l as t he 19 pr os ecut i on, t o offe r evi dence of ot heract s of m i s conduct t o es t abl i s h a per s on’ s m ot i ve forHammer Pag e 13

See 20 htt p:/ /www .s tor

yart s. org/libr ary

/a e so ps /st orie s/b oy .html State v. Boggs , 588 N.E.2d 813, 816-17 ( Ohio 1992) (“ The mer e fa ct that an a lleg ed 21 rapevictim made prior f

alse a lleg ations does not automatically mean that she is fabric atingthe prese nt charg e. L ikewise, prior false a lleg ations of sexual assault do not tend to prove or disprove any

of the e lements of ra

pe, nor do the y

relate to issues of conse nt.”). p e rf o rm in g so m e a c t– su c h a s m a k in g a f a lse a lleg a tio n a g a in st th e d e f e n d a n t. T hu s, gen eral l y speaking, t he T exas R ules of E vidence p erm i t t he d efen dan t t o crossexami ne a w i t nes s forhi s purpor t ed bi as , i nt er es t , an d m o ti v e w i t hout undue l i m i t at i on or
arbi t r ar y pr ohi bi t i on. T he next ques t i on, t hen, i s w het her t hos e rul es acc om m odat e evi dence of a w i t ness’ s pri or, pu rport edlyfal se, accusati on s. B . T h e A d m i ssi on of P ri or F als e A ccu sati on E viden ce i n S ex u al A ssault i ve C ases. T he t heor y for admi t t i ng pr i or fal s e accus at i ons of r ape i n a s ex- offe ns e pr os ecut i on i s fr equ entl yanalogi zed to A esop’s sto ry o f “T he B oy W ho C ri ed W olf. ” A past fal se
acc us at ion m ak es i t m or e l i kel yt hatt he w i t nes s l acks cr edi bi l i t yand t hus s houl d not be b e li e v e d c o n c e rn in g th is a c c u sa tio n . B u t in A e so p ’s f a b le, th e re re a llyw a s a w o lf , an d it k ill e d th e sh e e p . T h e m o ra l o f th a t sto ry w a s “ N o b o d y b e liev e s a liar. . . ev e n w h e n h e is 20 tellin g th e tr u th .” A c rim in a l trial, h o w e v e r, is d e sig n e d to f in d th e tru th a b o u t a s p e c if ic i nci dent , not t o deci de w het hers om eone ha s l i ed i n t he past about t he pre s ence of w ol ves or aboutbei ng r aped. Pr i or fal s e al l egat i ons of r ape do not t end t o pr ove ordi s pr ove anyof t he el ement s of t he cha r ged s exual offe ns e. 21Hammer Pag e 14

Se eLop e z v . S tate , 1 8 S. W.3 d 2 20 , 2 23 (T e x. Crim. Ap p. 20 00 ) ( c oll e c tin gout- of -s tate 22 case s sugg estingthat the Confrontation Clause re quires a spe cial exception admitting e videnceof the complainant’ s prior fa lse ac cusations of a buse in sexual offense s). Lop e z, 1 8 S
. W
. 3 d

at2 2 5 (“ Be cau s e w e f

i n d (1 ) o ur p re ce d en td o es n o tfav o r c re at i n g a 23 specia l exception to the Rul es of Evide nce f or sex offense s, and (2) the rationale of the out-of
state ca ses cr eatinga univer sal sexual offense exception is unpersuasive, wedecline to c reate a pe r seexception to the Rule 608(b) for sexual offenses.” ). See State v . W

yrick, 62 S.W .3d 751, 772 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2001) (def endant’ s 24 contention that victim’s prior fa lse ac cusation of r ape is re levant to her cre dibility

is the very

ty pe of pr op e ns ity

e vid e nc e that Ru le 40 4(b) se e ks to e xclu de ); se ege ne ra lly , Har riett R. Galvin, Shielding Rape Victims in the State and Fede ral Court s: A Proposal for the Second D ecade , 70 M I NN .L .REV . 763, 861 (1986) ( explaining that some cour ts permit false- alleg ation evidenc e not “to impeac h the complainant’ s g ener al cha rac ter for truthfulness, but instead . . . to show a pr op e ns ity

to c ha rg e ra pe fa lse ly ,” the reby

igno ri ng“ thefa c t th at a dmi tti nge vid e nc e un de r t his theory violates the g ener al rule f orbiddingevidenc e of c hara cter to prove c onformingconduct” ). T her efor e, T ex as, unl i ke s om e j ur i s di ct i ons , has not cr eat ed a per se e x c e p tio n to 22 R ul e 608( b) ’ s gene ral p rohi bi t i on agai ns t i m peac hm entw i t h s peci fi c i ns t ance s of conduc t t o admi t evi dence of t he compl ai nant ’ s pr i or fal s e al l egat i ons of abus e orm ol es t at i on. T he 23 i nferenti al chain of logi c t hat i s barr ed b yR ule 608(b) i s t his : T h e w i t n e s s l i e d t o h i s e m p l o ye r [ o r d i d s o m e s p e c i f i c a c t o f d i s h o n e s t y] T h at sp ec ifi c c o n d u ct pro v es d isho n est ch ara cter; T her efor e, t he w i t nes s i s gener al l ydi s hones t and s houl d not be bel i eved i n t hi s cas e. A pp l i ed to pri or fal se accusat i on s, t he b arr ed ev i den t i arychain i s t his : C om pl ai nantm ade a pr i or fal s e ac cus at i on; T h at sp ec ifi c c o n d u ct pro v es d isho n est ch ara cter; T her efo r e, t he compl ai nanti s gener al l y di s hones t and s houl d not be bel i eved i n t hi s cas e. T h is is p re c is e ly th e p ro h ib ite d p ro p e n s ity c h a in o f lo g ic

– “ O n c e a th ie f

, a lw a y s a th ie f

,”

“ O n c e a liar, a lw a y s a liar”

– th a t u n d e rlies b o th R u les 4 0 4 (b ) a n d 6 0 8 (b ). A se x u a l as sa u lt 24Hammer Pag e 15

Se ege ne ra lly , Denise R. Johnson, Prior False Allegations of Rape: Falsus in Uno, 25 Fa lsus in Om nib us, 7 Y AL E J
. L. & F EM . 2 43 (1 99 5) (a rguin gthat e vid e nc e of

prior fa lse alleg ations should be excluded unless probative of motive in the particular

case ). Boggs v. Collins , 226 F.3d 728, 739- 40 (6 Cir. 2000) (dec lining to find a 26 th Confrontation Clause violation when trial c ourt excluded evidenc e of prior false acc usation of rapebeca use it was off

ere d to impeach the vic tim’s ge nera l cre dibility , not to demonstrate her bia s o r m oti ve to t e sti fy

); Un ite d S

tates v . B ar tle tt , 856 F.2d 1071, 1089 ( 8 Cir. 1988) th (admission of evidenc e of a n alleg ed prior f

alse a ccusation of rapeoffe red solely to attack the victim’s ge nera l cre dibility is not required unde r Davis v. Alask a ); Hughes v . Raines , 641 F.2d 79 0, 79 2- 93 (9 Cir . 1 98 1) ; Ad am s v . S mi th , 280 F. Supp.2d 704, 714 (E.D. Mic h. 2003). th ___ S.W .3d ___, No. PD-0969-07, 2009 WL322244 (Tex. Crim. App. Feb. 11, 2009)
. 27 In Billodeau , the evidenc e showe d that the def endant ha d g iven the child two re mote- 28 control ca rs. The c hild’s mother disapprove d of the c ars a nd told the defe ndant to take them back. When the de fenda

nt took them from the child, he “ went into a ra g e, thre w the ca rs at [the defe ndant], hitting him in the bac k, and sworeat him.” ___ S.W.3d at ___, 2009 W L322244, at *1. The da

y afte r this tantrum, the child ac cused the defe ndant of sexually molesting him. Id. compl ai nanti s not a vol unt eer for an exer ci s e i n char act er as s as s i nat i on. Sever al fede r al 25
cour t s have he l d that excl us i on of t hi s evi dence , offe r ed t o at t ack t he vi ct i m ’ s gener al
cr edi bi l i t y , does not vi ol at e t he C onfr ont at i on C l aus e. 26 I f, how ever , t he cr os s - exami ner offe r s evi dence of a pr i or fal s e ac cus at i on of s exual act i vi t yfors om e purpos e ot her t han a pr opens i t y at t ack upon t he w i t nes s ’ s gener al char act er for t rut hfu l ness, i t m ayw el l be ad m i ssi ble unde r our s t at e evidenti aryrul es. For exampl e, i n B ill o d e a u v . S ta te , w e hel d t hat t he t r i al cour t s houl d have a dm i t t ed 27 evi dence t hatt he chi l d compl ai nanti n t hat aggr avat ed sexua l as s aul t pr os ecut i on had made t hr eat s t o fal s el yacc us e t w o nei ghbor s of s exual m ol es t at i on. W e hel d t hats uch evi dence
s u p p o r t e d t h e d e f

e n s i v e t h e o r y t h a t t h e c o mpl a i n a n t ’ s mot i v e i n a c c u s i n g t h e d e f e n d a n t of
se x u a l m o les tatio n w a s “ ra g e a n d a n g e r” w h e n h e w a s th w a rte d
. E v id e n c e o f th re a ts to 28Hammer Pag e 16

n.3. The de fensetheory

was that the c hild falsely acc used the de fenda

nt of sexual molestation be c a us e he wa s angry

at hi m f or takin gawa

y thec ars . E vid e nc e that, o n o the r o c c a sio ns (i n th is casethey occur red a fter theprimary

offe nse), the c hild had, when e nrag ed at someonefor thw art inghis de sir e s, fa lse ly a c c us e d ( or

thr e ate ne d to fa lse ly

a c c us e ) t hat pe rs on

of se xua lly molesting him shows a c ommon moti ve to ac cuse someoneof molestation when heis angry at them. Rule 404(b) would a llow this ty pe of e videnceag ainst the defe ndant to prove his motive in committi ngthe cha

rg ed crime, and it is equally availableto the defe nse to prove thevictim’s motive in actingas he did. See Kittleson v. Dre tke , 426 F.3d 306, 322 ( 5 Cir. 2005) (victim’s ac cusation that 29 th some other man ha d improperly touched he r supported de fensive the ory that victim “had a motive to make up such a n acc usation in order to g ain attention and sy mpathy , as she ha d rec eived onc e bef

ore, a nd to show that once [victim’s] acc usation had bee n repor ted to the police, she wa s afr aid to rec ant.”)
. SeeJules Epstein, True Lies: The Consti tutional and Evidentiary Bases for Admitting 30 Prior False Accusation Evide nce in Se xual Assault Prosecutions , 24 Q U I N N I PI A C L .REV . 609, 643-44 (2006)
. acc us e ot her s of s exual m ol es t at i on w hen he di s pl ay ed “r age and anger ” at bei ng t hw ar t ed i s s om e evi dence of a comm on m ot i ve foracc us i ng t he def endantof s exual m ol es t at i on. T he chain of logi c i s as fol l ow s: T he vi ct i m m akes fal se accusati on s i n cert ai n cir cum st ances an d fo r cer t ai n reasons; T hos e ci r cumst ance s and r eas ons ar e pr es enti n t hi s cas e; T her efor e, t he vi ct i m m ade a fal s e ac cus at i on i n t hi s cas e. 29 O ne m i gh t even cal l t his m odus oper andi evi dence admi s s i bl e underR ul e 404( b)
. E vi dence of ot heract s or w r ongs m aybe adm issi b le underR ul e 404( b) t o pr ove s uch mat t er s as
m ot i ve, i nt ent , s cheme, or anyot herr el evantpurpos e except conduct i n confor m i t yw i t h bad char act er . E ven “t he doct r i ne of chanc es ” has been i nvoked as a pos s i bl e basi s foradmi t t i ng evi dence of a vi ct i m ’ s pr i or fal s e ac cus at i on of r ape. Si m i l ar l y , evi dence of a vi ct i m ’ s pr i or 30Hammer Pag e 17

T EX . R. E V ID . 412(b)( 2)(C). 31 Appellant did argue that “theevidenc e prof fer ed by Ms. Makuta in the off

er of proof 32 tended to add onemore piec e to the puzzl e as to De fenda nt’s argument that complainant wa s an s exual act i vi t ym aybe admissi b l e underR ul e 412, t he Texas R ape Shi el d L aw , w hen 31
o f f e re d to e s ta b lis h th e v ic tim ’s m o tiv e o r b ia s a g a in s t th e d e f e n d a n t. In sum , several differ ent s t at e evidenti aryrul es perm i t th e u se o f pri or fal se
a c c u sa tio n s w h e n o f

f e re d to sh o w th e w itn e ss ’s b ias o r m o tiv e o r f o r s o m e o th e r re lev a n t, nonchar act erpurpos e. T he C onfr on tat ion Cl aus e mandat e of D avis v. A l as ka i s not i nco nsi st ent w i t h T exas ev i den ce l aw . T hu s, com pli ance w i t h a rul e of e vidence w i l l , i n m ost i ns t ance s , avoi d a cons t i t ut i on al q u esti on conce r ni ng t he admi s s i bi l i t yof s uch evi dence
. W i t h t hatgener al fr amew or k, w e tur n t o t he pr es entcas e. III
. A t hi s t r i al , appel l antoffe r ed evi dence of P. H
. ’ s pr i or s exual conductand herpr i or
a lle g a tio n s o f

“ ra p e ” f o r t h re e re a s o n s : ( 1 ) i t w a s re le v a n t to P .H .’s tr u th f u ln e s s , i
. e. , her gener al cr edi bi l i t y ; ( 2) i t w as r equi r ed t o be admi t t ed under the C onfr ont at i on C l aus e; and ( 3) i t w as admi s s i bl e underR ul e 412 t o s how P. H
. ’ s m ot i ve t o fal s el y accus e herfat her beca us e he w as t oo s t r i ct . W e agree t hats om e of t hi s evi dence w as admi s s i bl e t o s how P. H
. ’ s pos s i bl e mot i ve i n acc us i ng herfat herof m ol es t at i on. Fi r s t , w e not e tha t a ppel l antover - emphasi zed hi s r el i ance upon t he C onfr ont at i on C l aus e, r at her t han R ul e 412 ( or ot herevi dent i ar yr ul es s uch as R ul es 613 or 404( b) ) , i n t he
cour t of appe al s . T hus , t hatcour t focus ed sol el y upon hi s C onfr ont at i on C l aus e ar gum ent 32Hammer Pag e 18

out of c ontr ol c hil d th at di d n ot a pp re c iate he r f

athe r e nf or c ingru le s in

that sh e te sti fi e d P. H. did not have se x with Mr. Talame ndez at all but rather lied about the ra

pe to keep her f

ather from discoveringher r elationship with Anthony . This was cr ucial to Def

endant’ s case , and a ma

jor the me of his op e nin gargume nt. Thus thee vid e nc e wa s n ot o nly pr ob ativ e a s to P.H .’ s c re dib ili ty but as to her motivation as we ll. It is important to note that Rule 608 only prohibits the admission of specific instances of conduct to attac k the cr edibility of the witness.” Appellant’s B rief in the Court of Appea ls at 6. The c ourt of appe als, in looking at the entire c ollection of prof fer ed evide nce, 33 conclude d that it amounted to a “g ener al” attack on P.H.’s cr edibility
. Hamme r , 256 S.W .3d at 395. The c ourt was c orre ct that, in its entirety , the excluded evidenc e does attack P.H. as be ing g ener ally untruthful about sexual matters. It is a mish-mash of “TheBoy Who C ried Wolf” evidenc e. B ut the trial court a nd the cour

t of appe als failed to e x amine the individual offe rs of e vid e nc e to s e e wh e the r s omeof that e vid e nc e wa s n ot m e re ly a g e ne ra l atta c k u

po n c re dib ili ty but a more spe cific attack upon P.H.’s motive to falsely acc use appe llant of molestation. i ns t ead of fi r s t det er m i ni ng w het her t hi s evi dence , t hough bar r ed by R ul e 60 8 (b), w as admi s s i bl e underot herevi dent i ar yr ul es t o pr ove P. H
. ’ s m ot i ve. O nl yi f t he pr offered 33 evi dence i s bar r ed byal l s t at e evi dent i ar yr ul es m us t cour t s t ur n t o t he fe der al cons t i t ut i on. I n t hi s cas e, appel l an t’ s d ef en sive t heor yw as t hatP. H
. m ade up a t al e of s exual
m o les tatio n to g e t o u t f

ro m u n d e r th e h e a v yh a n d o f h e r f a th e r. S h e sa id sh e n e v e r lik e d h im b e c a u se h e d isc ip lin e d h e r to o m u c h a n d y e lled a t h e r w h ile d o in g so . S h e w a s a n g ryw ith h im b e c a u se h e w o u ld n ’t let h e r d o w h a tev e r sh e w a n ted to , as sh e c o u ld w h e n sh e liv e d w ith herm ot her
. T he j ur yw as aw ar e of P. H
. ’ s m ot i ve t o m ake a fal s e accus at i on t hatw oul d s end appel l antback t o pr i s on. A ppel l antw as al l ow ed t o ques t i on P. H
. gener al l yabout herm ot i ve t o f a l s e l ya c c u s e h i m. B ut w hatt he j ur ydi d not know –beca us e t he t r i al j udge exc l uded i t–i s t hatP. H
. w as p a rticu lar lya n g ryw ith a p p e llan t w h e n h e to o k h e r to th e h o sp ital f o r a s e x u a l as sa u lt exami nat i on aft ers he had run aw ayfr om hom e and s t ay ed outover ni ght
. She t ol d t he nur s e,Hammer Pag e 19

See U nited States v. Stamper , 766 F. Supp. 1396 (W.D.N.C. 1991) (de fenda nt’s 34 evidenc e that ra

pe victim had pre viously

made f alse a ccusations of sex ual assault ag ainst other me n w a s a dmi ssibleto s ho w h e r “ sc he me of fa bric atio n” to m anip ulate he r c us todians , avo id thera py , and similar motives). In Stamper , th e de fe nd ant, c ha rg e d w ithstatut or

y ra pe , s ou ght t o cross-e x amine the victim and pr esent e x trinsic evidenc e to prove that in the past, the victim had falsely acc used threeadult men of sexual abuse in orde r to move fr om the home of one biologica l pare nt to the other and ba ck ag ain and to ac hieve other persona l goa ls. Id. at 1402. The district court quoted Davis, saying tha t the “‘ exposure of a w itness’ motivation in t estifying is a proper and important func tion of the constitutionally protec ted right of cross -examination.’” Id . at 1400. Noting thelack of

phy sical evide nce of

rape , the cour

t stated that the victim was a c rucia l or key “M ydad w ant s t o pr ove t hatI had s exual i nt er cour s e w i t h one of t he guy s t hatI r an aw ay
w i t h. ” P. H
. al s o t ol d t he nur s e t hat I gnaci o T al amendez had “ s exual l yas s aul t ed” he r . She
s a id th a t “ a t f

ir s t it w a s k in d o f a c o n s e n s u a l th in g b u t I t o ld h im to s to p a n d h e k e p t g o in g .” T hen, P. H
. purpor t edl y t ol d Shonna t hat s he had r eal l yhad s ex w i t h A nt hony , herboy fr i end, t hatni ght
. She had s ai d t hati t w as I gnaci o beca us e her fat herw as r eal l ys t r i ctaboutl et t i ng h e r se e A n th o n y . A p p a re n tlyth is e v e n t u p se t P .H . so m u c h th a t sh e th re a te n e d to c o m m it
su ici d e a n d w as a d m it ted to the st ate ho sp it al sh o rt ly there af ter. T h e c h arg ed o ff

en ses w ere
a lleg e d to h a v e h a p p e n e d a b o u t a m o n th a f ter sh e w a s re lea se d f

ro m th e sta te h o sp ital. T h is e v id e n c e is s tro n g su p p o rt f o r a p p e llan t’s th e o ry th a t P .H . h a d a m o tiv e to f a lse ly
acc us e hi m of s exual m ol es t at i on. I t al s o demonst r at es t hatP. H
. w as not above changi ng her st ory of a con sensual sexual enco un t er w i t h her bo y fri end i nto a no nco nsensua l o n e w ith
s om eone e l s e t o pr event her fat her fr om l ear ni ng t he t r ut h and pr es um abl ypuni s hi ng herfor
r u n n i n g a w a y a n d h a v i n g s e x w i t h A n t h o n y. T hi s evi dence w as admi s s i bl e–unl es s excl uded underR ul e 403–t o pr ove P. H
. ’ s bi as ag ainst appel l antand t o s how herpurpor t ed mot i ve i n fal s el yacc us i ng hi m . T he Texas 34Hammer Pag e 20

witness. Id. Thus, in order “ to confront the c omplainant eff ectively , to elucidate the fac ts and le g a l is su e s h e rein q

ue sti on fu lly , a nd to p re se nt a

de fe ns e in a

c on sti tut ion a lly

via bletria l, Def endant must be a llowed to set befor e the jury the proff ere d evidenc e of ulterior motives of the complainant .” Id . D ist inguis hin gthi s c a se from t ho se in whic h th e de fe nd ant s ou ght o nly to impeach thevictim’s ge nera l cre dibility with the prior fa lse ac cusation, the c ourt held that the defe ndant” is entitled to offe r the e videncenece ssary to prove his theory

of the c ase by

showing that complainant' s charg es ag ainst him did notevincea sing le isolated instanceof manipulative behavior , but rather

wer e par t of an ong oing sc heme or , at least, a scheme reve aled by

the like motives and modus operandiof sche mes past .” Id . at 1402. The c ourt held the e vidence admissible under F eder al Rule 404(b). Id. at 1406. T EX . R. E V ID . 412(b)( 2)(C). 35 Se ePo tie r v . S

tate , 68 S.W .2d 657, 663-65 (Te x . Crim. App. 2002) (“We hold that the 36 exclusion of a defe ndant' s evidenc e will be constitutional err or only if the evide nce f

orms such a v i t al p o rt i o no f th e c as e th atex cl u s i o nef fe ct i v el y p re cl u d es th e d ef

en d an tfr o mp re s en t i n g a defe nse.”)
. R ul es of E v iden ce do notcont ai n a s peci fi c rul e al l ow i ng t he admi s s i on of bi as or m ot i ve evi dence ( m aybe beca us e t he r i ght t o i m peac h a w i t nes s on t hes e bas es i s s o obvi ous ) , b ut R ul e 613( b) pr es um es t he r i ght t o admi t s uch evi dence beca us e i t deal s w i t h h o w t he w i t ness
m aybe exa m i ned conc er ni ng b i as or i nt er es t and w hen ext r i ns i c evi dence of t hatbi as or i nt er es t m aybe admi t t ed. Fur t her m or e, appel l antpr oper l yi nvoked R ul e 412, w hi ch cont ai ns
an ex p li cit “ m o tiv e o r b ias” e x ce p ti o n to the b ar a g ains t evid en ce o f a n all eg ed v ict im ’s pr evi ous s exual conduct
. Fi nal l y , t he C onfr ont at i on C l aus e mi ght w el l have r equi r ed t he 35
a d m iss io n o f

th is e v id e n c e sh o w in g P .H .’s m o tiv e to f a b ric a te if a p p e llan t h a d n o t b e e n a b le to sh o w th a t m o tiv e th ro u g h o th e r m e a n s– e v e n if th a t e v id e n c e h a d b e e n b a rre d u n d e r sta te evi dent i ar yr ul es . I n t hi s cas e, how ever , appel l ant ’ s gener al defe ns i ve t heor yw as pr es ent ed 36 t o t h e j u r y t h r o u g h a l t e r n a t e t e s t i m o n y. T he t r i al cour t appea r s t o have unde r s t ood t hat t hi s evi dence w as pr obat i ve t o s howHammer Pag e 21

Rul e 40 3 r e a ds , “ Al tho ugh r e le va nt, e vid e nc e may

be e xclu de d if

its pr ob ativ e va lueis 37 substantially

outweighed by

the dang er of

unfair pr ejudice, c onfusion of the issues, or misleading the jury , or by

considera

tions of undue delay , or nee dless prese ntation of cumulative e vidence .” T EX . R. E V ID . 403. Mc Fa rla nd v . S tate , 845 S.W .2d 824, 837 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992), overruled on othe r 38 grounds , Bi ng

ha m v . S tate , 9 15 S.W. 2d

9 ( Te x. Crim. Ap p. 19 94 ); Gre e n v . S tate , 840 S.W .2d 394, 410 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992). Con no r v . S

tate , 6 7 S. W.3 d 1 92 , 2 02 (T e x. Crim. Ap p. 20 01 ); J oin e r v . S tate , 825 39 S.W .2d 701, 708 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992). Se eMo ntgom e ry

v . S tate , 8 1 0 S
. W
. 2 d

3 7 2 , 3 8 8 (T ex . C ri m . Ap p . 1 9 9 0 ) ( o p . o nre h ’g) 40 (pre sumption under Rule 403 is that probative value outweighs prejudicial e ffe ct “unless in the po stureof

thepa rt ic ula r c a se thetria l c ourt

de te rm ine s o the rw ise ” ); see also Conner v. State, 67 S.W .3d 192, 202 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001) (“Rule 403 re quires exclusion of evidenc e only when the ree xists a

c le ar d isp ari ty

be tw e e n th e de gre e of

pr e judic e of theof fe re d e vid e nc e and

its pr ob ativ e va lue ” ); State v. Me chler , 153 S.W .3d 435, 443-44 (Te x . Crim. App. 2005) (Cochra n, J
. , co n curr i n g) ( al l R

u l e 4 0 3 ru l i n gs ar e s u

b j ec tt o thre e ge n er al co n s i d er at i o n s : “1 ) th e tri al j u d ge should ex erc ise his power to e x clude e videnceunder Rule 403 spa ring ly ; 2) the trial judg e’s discretion under

Rule 403 is not an invitation t o rule re flexively or without car eful re asoning ; 3) thetria l ju dg e may

no t e xclu de e vid e nc e me re ly be c a us e hedis be lie ve s th e te sti mony” ); see P .H .’s m o tiv e to tes tify b e c a u se sh e e x c lu d e d it o n lyu n d e r R u le 4 0 3 , n o t so m e g e n e ra l ru le bar r i ng al l s uch evi dence of m ot i ve and bi as . She r epea t edl ys t at ed t hats he w as excl udi ng t hi s evi dence beca us e i t s “pr ej udi ci al eff ectout w ei ghed i t s pr obat i ve val ue. ” R el evant
e v id e n c e m a yb e e x c lu d e d u n d e r R u le 4 0 3 o n lyif its p ro b a tiv e v a lu e is s u b sta n tially out w ei ghed byt he dange r of unfa i r pr ej udi ce. U nderR ul e 403, i t i s pr es um ed t h att he 37 p ro b a tiv e v a lu e o f

re lev a n t ev id e n c e e x c e e d s a n yd a n g e r o f u n f a ir p re ju d ic e . T h e ru le

38 envi s i ons excl us i on of evi dence onl yw hen t her e i s a “c l eardi s par i t ybet w een t he degr ee of p re ju d ic e o f th e o f f e re d e v id e n c e a n d its p ro b a tiv e v a lu e .” 39 B ecause R ule 403 p erm i t s t he ex cl usi on of ad m i t t e dlyprobati ve ev i den ce, i t i s a
r emedy t hats houl d be used spa r i ngl y , es peci al l y i n “he s ai d, s he s ai d” s exual
- m ol es t at i on 40Hammer Pag e 22

genrally, 1 J A CK W EINS TEIN & M AR GA R E T B ER GER , W E IN ST E IN ' S E V I D EN CE ¶ 403[01] , at 403- 10 (1 99 8) (“ I f t

he reis a ny do ub t a bo ut t he e xiste nc e of

un fa ir pr e judic e , c on fu sio n o f t

he iss ue s, misleading , undue dela

y or wa ste of time, it is ge nera lly better pr acticeto admit the evidence takingnece ssary

prec autions by

way of conte mporane ous instructions to the jury followed by additional admonitions in the cha rg e”)
. Se eLop e z v . S tate , 18 S.W .3d 220, 227 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000) (Keller , J ., concur ring ); 41 se eals o Pe op lev . H

ur lbu rt , 333 P.2d 82, 83 (Cal. Ct. App. 1958) (“As is usual in such c ases, the pr os e c uti on

wa s f or c e d to re ly

prima ri ly on thete sti mony

of thec omp la ini ngwi tne ss t o e sta bli sh its case, while thedefe nse, by nece ssity , was forced to r ely almost entirely

on the denials of the defe ndant. Thus, the cr edibility of the c omplaining witness wa s one of the ba sic issues prese nted to t he jur y .” ); Mi lle r v . S

tate , 779 P.2d 87, 89 (Nev. 1989). cas es t hatm us t be r es ol ved s ol el yon t he bas i s of t he t es t i m onyof t he compl ai nantand t he d ef en d an t. In t h is ca se, the t ri al jud g e m ay h av e u sed the c o rrect ba lanc ing test , b u t t h ere

41 i s not hi n g in the re cor d t o s how t hats he al s o t ook i nt o acc ount t he pos s i bl e cons t i t ut i onal
ram ifi ca ti o n s o f a n ex clus ion o f a ll o f a p p e lla n t’ s ev iden ce o ff ere d to d em o n str ate P
. H
. ’s
mo t i v e t o t e s t i f

ya g a i n s t a p p e l l a n t . Al t h o u g h t h e r e i s c o n s i d e r a b l e p r e j u d i c e i n a l l o wi n g P
. H. t o be cr os s - exami ned about her s exual conduct w i t h herboy fr i end, herangeratappel l antfor
r equi r i ng hert o under go a s exual as s aul t exami nat i on, and hervariou s stat em ent s t o t he
n u rse, thi s i s not “unfa i r ” pr ej udi ce be caus e i t s er ves t he i m por t antfunct i on of expl ai ni ng pr eci s el yw hyP. H
. m i ght be mot i vat ed t o fal s el y acc us e appel l ant and t o acc us e hi m of t he
ver ys ame conductt hats he ac cus ed heruncl e of doi ng w hen s he w as t hi r t een. W e conc l ude t hatt he t r i al cour t abus ed her di s cr et i on i n pr event i ng appel l antfr om ( 1)
cr os s - exami ni ng P. H
. conce r ni ng t he cont ent s of t he medi cal r ecor ds w hen appe l l antt ook h e r t o th e h o sp ital t o b e e x a m in e d f o r a p o ss ib le s e x u a l as sa u lt; (2 ) o f f e rin g th o se re c o rd s in to evi dence i f P
. H
. deni es t hei r acc ur acy ; and ( 3) offe r i ng Shonna’ s t es t i m onyt hatP. H
. t ol d herHammer Pag e 23

Hamme r , 256 S.W .3d at 394-95. 42 Id. 43 Se eLop e

z v . S tate , 18 S.W .3d 220, 226 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000) (“Without proof that 44 the prior a lleg ation was fa lse or that the two a ccusations were similar, the e videncefails to have any pr ob ativ e va luein i mpe a c hin g[co mpl a ina nt’ s] c re dib ili ty

in t his c a se . F or

the se same rea sons, the risk that this evidence would unduly prejudiceand conf

use the jury

was high.”). Se eDeLa Paz

v . S tate , _ _ _ S. W. 3 d _ _ , _ _ _ , N o . PD
. 0 2 9 2
- 0 8 & 0 2 9 8
- 0 8 , 2 0 0 9 WL 45 774846 at * 8-9 (T ex. C rim. App. Marc h 25, 2009). t hatt he s exual act i vi t i es t hatni ght w er e cons ens ual and w i t h herboy fr i end, not as s aul t i ve wi t h I g n a c i o T a l a me n d e z . T h i s e v i d e n c e , r e l a t i n g t o e v e n t s o c c u r r i n g s h o r t l yb e f o r e t h e t wo al l eged s exual encount er s at i s s ue i n t hi s t r i al and r el evant t o P. H
. ’ s ani m us t ow ar d appel l ant
a n d h e r d e sire to g e t o u t o f h is h o u se , is d e m o n stra b lym o re p ro b a tiv e th a n p re ju d icia l in
es t abl i s hi ng her m ot i ve t o t es t i fy
. T her e i s not hi ng i n t he r ecor d t hat w oul d s uppor t a fi ndi ng t hati t s pr ej udi ci al eff

ectout w ei ghed i t s pr obat i ve val ue, m uch l es s w hyi t s pr obat i ve val ue
w as su b sta n tia lly out w ei ghed byt he dange r of u n fa irpr ej udi ce. T he ot he r e vi de nc e t ha t t he t r i a l j ud ge e xc l ud e d, a s no t e d b yt he c ou r t of app eal s, i ncl uded: ( 1) T he cont ent s of P
. H
. ’ s j our nal
. W e agr ee t hat , beca us e t he j our nal w as not 42 pr oduced a nd t he cont ent s are unknow n, appel l antfai l ed t o s how t hatt hey have a nyr el evanc e; ( 2) T he fa ctt hatP. H
. t ol d ot her s that she had be en s exual l ym ol es t ed byher m other ’s bo y fri end s. W e a g re e t hat t here w as no sho w i ng t hat t hese 43 a c c u s a t i o n s we r e , i n f

a c t , f a l s e o r t h a t t h e ywe r e s i mi l a r t o t h e a c c u s a t i o n P
. H. m ade a gai ns t appel l ant . H ow ever , i t i s hi ghl yunl i kel yt hats he w as m ol es t ed 44 b y a llof herm ot her ’ s boy fr i ends
. A r at i onal fac t fi nderm i ght , under W i gm or e’ s doct r i ne of c hance s, reas onabl yconcl ude t hatatl eas t s om e of t hes e ac cus at i ons , i f notal l , w er e fa l s e. 45Hammer Pag e 24

Hamme r , 256 S.W .3d at 394. 46 Id. at 395. 47 Id. at 395-96. 48 ( 3) T he pr offe r ed t es t i m onybyP. H
. ’ s gr andmot hert hatP. H
. and her cous i n l i ed aboutbei ng hel d atkni fe poi nt byfi ve men w ho t hr eat ened t o r ape t hem, but admi t t ed w hen t heyr etu rned home t hatt heyhad j us t r un aw ay . W e agr ee 46 t hatappel l antfai l ed t o m ake a s uffi ci entevi dent i ar yconnec t i on or ar gum ent to e sta b lish th e in d e p e n d e n t p ro b a tiv e v a lu e o f th is e v id e n c e , b u t it , alo n g w ith P. H
. ’ s al l egat i ons aboutherm ot her ’ s boy fr i ends , i s one m or e epi s ode, under t he doct r i ne of c hance s , t hat m akes al l of heral l egat i ons of s exual m i s conduct s o m e w h a t l e s s l i k e l y; (4 ) T h e e v id e n c e th a t P .H . w a s f o u n d “ a t th e A g . B a rn ly in g o n th e g ro u n d w ith h er bo y frien d ” see m s to hav e no p rob ati v e va lue ex ce p t t o sh o w the v ict im ’s p u rp o rte d p ro m isc u ity , an e v id e n tiary u s e th a t is stric tlyp ro h ib ited b yR u le 412. N o one s ugges t ed t hatt he s chool offi ci al ’ s r epor t of P. H
. ’ s act i vi t yw as f a lse o r th a t th e in c id e n t w a s s im ilar to th a t in v o lv in g a p p e llan t. 47 W e a g re e w ith th e c o u rt o f a p p e a ls th a t th e trial ju d g e d id n o t ab u se h e r d is c r e ti o n o r ru le “out s i de t he zone of r eas onabl e di s agr eement ” i n excl udi ng evi dence of t he j our nal s or of t he “A g. B arn” i ncident , bu t t he other evidence w as ad m i ssi ble un der the do ct ri ne o f cha nces. 48 I n s um , w e hol d t hat t he t r i al j udge abuse d her di s cr et i on i n pr event i ng appel l antfr om
cro ss-ex am ining P
. H
. ab o u t t h e h o sp it al i n c id e n t, h e r all eg ati o n s tha t “all o f h er m o ther’s boy fr i ends had s exual l ym ol es t ed her , ” t he i nci dent about bei ng hel d atkni fe poi nt byfi ve
m e n , an d h e r sta tem e n ts to S h o n n a c o n c e rn in g th e p u rp o rte d se x u a l a s s a u lt b yIg n a c io T al amendez t o demonst r at e herbi as agai ns t appel l antan d h erpos s i bl e mot i ve t o t es t i fy fa lsel yag ains t him
. B ec au se th e p arti es ha v e no t b ri ef ed the issu e o f h arm o n d iscreti o n aryHammer Pag e 25
r evi ew , and t he cour t of appe al s has not y ethad an oppor t uni t yto ad d ress t hi s i s s ue under R ul e 44. 2( b) , w e r ever s e t he j udgm ent and r emand t he cas e t o t he cour t of appea l s forfur t her pr ocee di ngs cons i s t entw i t h t hi s opi ni on. D el i ver ed: A pr i l 8, 2009 P ub l i sh