Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/529bv.pdf
Page Number: 631.0

529US2

Unit: $U52

[09-26-01 10:36:40] PAGES PGT: OPIN

556

CARMELL v. TEXAS

Ginsburg, J., dissenting

18 at the time of the offense, the 1993 amendment repealed
this corroboration requirement. The amended version of
Article 38.07 thus permits sexual assault victims between 14
and 18 to have their testimony considered by the jury in the
same manner and with the same effect as that of witnesses
generally in Texas prosecutions.

This sort of corroboration requirement—still embodied
in Article 38.07 for victims aged 18 or older—is a common,
Its purpose is to
if increasingly outmoded, rule of evidence.
rein in the admissibility of testimony the legislature has
deemed insufﬁciently credible standing alone. Texas’ re-
quirement of corroboration or outcry, like similar provisions
in other jurisdictions, is premised on a legislative judgment
that accusations made by sexual assault victims above a cer-
tain age are not independently trustworthy. See Villareal
v. State, 511 S. W. 2d 500, 502 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974) (“The
basis of this rule is that the failure to make an outcry or
promptly report the rape diminishes the credibility of the
prosecutrix.”); cf., e. g., Battle v. United States, 630 A. 2d 211,
217 (D. C. 1993) (evidence of outcry “rebuts an implied charge
of recent fabrication, which springs from some jurors’ as-
sumptions that sexual offense victims are generally lying
and that the victim’s failure to report the crime promptly
is inconsistent with the victim’s current statement that the
assault occurred”).

Legislatures in many States, including Texas, have en-
acted similar evidentiary provisions requiring corroboration
for the testimony of other categories of witnesses, particu-
larly accomplices. See, e. g., Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann.,
Art. 38.14 (Vernon Supp. 2000) (“A conviction cannot be
had upon the testimony of an accomplice unless corroborated
by other evidence tending to connect the defendant with the
offense committed . . . .”). Such provisions—generally on
the wane but still in force in several States—are, like Arti-
cle 38.07, designed to ensure the credibility of the relevant
witness. See, e. g., State v. Haugen, 448 N. W. 2d 191, 194