Opinion ID: 6216640
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Cravens Testimony.

Text: ¶15 Cravens was the only known eyewitness to what occurred outside the bar. During its case-in-chief, the State questioned him, inter alia, about his prior relationship with Lake 9 in the months leading up to the stabbing.5 He testified that, a few months before, Lake “came outside around the back [of the bar] and made a comment about having a dream about raping a 14-year-old girl.” Cravens, whose “daughter was 14 at the time,” found the story “hurt[ful]” and “offensive” and no longer “want[ed] to be [Lake’s] friend.”6 The State asked whether Lake “demonstrate[d] anything to illustrate his dream.” Cravens answered that he “made a motion as he was saying it.” The State asked, “[a]s if he was engaged in intercourse?” Cravens replied, “[s]omething like that,” and that he found it offensive and had thus discussed it with other bar regulars including Zitnik who also found it offensive. The following colloquy then occurred on defense cross-examination: [Defense]: [Y]ou never heard [Zitnik] say mean things to [Lake]? ... [Cravens]: Directly to him, no. ... [Defense]: “You are a pervert. You are a child molester.” [D]id you hear [Zitnik say] any of those [to Lake]? [Cravens]: I had heard things like that but I never heard . . . that happen. 5 Upon receipt of a State witness subpoena, Cravens initially refused to testify, purportedly due to safety concerns. On the State’s motion on the first day of trial, the District Court issued a warrant for Cravens’ arrest based on “civil contempt.” Upon his arrest, the State deposed Cravens in open court after voir dire, outside the presence of the jury. The next morning, the State called Cravens to testify at trial, which he did without objection or incident. 6 Cravens further stated that, while he and others were “concerned about” Lake, “the consensus” in the bar “was that [Lake] was harmless.” 10 [Defense]: Okay[,] . . . you had heard things[,] correct? There was quite a rumor going around the bar . . . [a]s to [Lake] . . . being a child molester or pervert? [Cravens]: Yes, for years. ... [Defense]: Did you say things to [Lake] . . . like[,] “You are a child molester. You are a pervert.” [T]hose kind of things? [Cravens]: There was an inciden[t] one night at the bar that [Lake] kept rubbing against me . . . [after] I had already told [him] to stay away from me and . . . [when] the same thing . . . [happened again] I pushed him off of me and I did say, “Get off of me you cho mo.”7 After defense counsel asked whether Cravens had ever previously stated that Lake’s description of the child rape dream included a sexual “motion,” the State, on redirect, made and elicited additional explicit references to Lake’s child sex abuse statements, to wit: [State]: And so you [previously stated to police], “. . . [Lake] admitted . . . he’s known . . . [by the nickname] skull fucker . . . [and] has [also] made a comment about . . . skull fucking a young kid . . . [and said that] ‘I had this dream last night [that] I was raping this fucking 14-year-old girl[’] . . . and he is going like this[.]” . . . So when you said, “[Lake] is going like this,” were you making the gyrating motion for the cop? [Cravens]: Yeah. ... [State]: And now yesterday when you gave your [deposition] statement . . . you [said], “. . . [Lake] walked up and . . . said that . . . ‘I had a dream last night that I was raping this . . . 14-year-old redhead.’[”] . . . Then the question was, “You are demonstrating how he – ,” and your answer was, “Made a humping motion.” [Cravens]: Yes. 7 The record indicates that “cho mo” was a shorthand/slang for “child molester.” 11