Opinion ID: 1509822
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Previous Complaint

Text: On cross-examination of Ms. Hall, defense counsel sought to elicit that she had filed a criminal complaint against him in 1994 which was later dismissed for want of prosecution. When the government objected, defense counsel told the court at a bench conference that he was trying to show that Ms. Hall was fabricating, making up all these charges against this man. . . . The court disallowed the line of questioning as irrelevant. Appellant now argues that this ruling was reversible error. This court addressed a similar issue in Roundtree v. United States, 581 A.2d 315 (D.C.1990), in which we held that a defendant's right of confrontation under the Sixth Amendment is limited to eliciting evidence that is relevant and probative. Id. at 320-321. Evidence concerning the withdrawal of a prior charge is probative only if it can be shown that the prior charge was false. Id. at 321. As we said in Roundtree: Where an accused seeks to impeach the credibility of a witness by offering evidence that the witness has made a false claim under similar circumstances, the confrontation clause mandates that the trial court give defendant leave to cross-examine about the prior claim only where it is shown convincingly that the prior claim is false. Id. (citing Sherer v. United States, 470 A.2d 732, 739 (D.C.1983)). In the instant case, the trial court properly barred counsel from asking about the prior charge. Counsel offered no evidence that the prior charge was dismissed because it was false. As the trial court said, there could have been a zillion other reasons why the charge was dismissed. Because appellant did not show convincingly, or in fact at all, that the prior charge was false, the dismissal of that charge was irrelevant, [5] and the court committed no error in keeping it from the jury's knowledge.