Opinion ID: 2039219
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Was defendant's rebuttal evidence of prior false accusations against others for the same offense erroneously excluded?

Text: Defendant sought to submit rebuttal evidence concerning an alleged incident, not mentioned during the victim's cross-examination, in which the victim on a prior occasion had cried rape. State's objections to this testimony and related offer of proof were sustained. The proffered proof was testimony of a sixteen-year-old boy who had taken the victim to a school dance when he was in the eighth grade and she in the seventh. Following the dance a number of boys and girls were in the basement of the victim's house. This witness testified: A. We was grabbing each other and hitting each other and poking each other, but not really wrestling. Q. Were there lots of people doing that? A. Yes. Q. Boys and girls? A. Yes. Q. And did she scream or yell Rape at that time? A. Yes. Q. Was that in your presence? A. Yes. Q. Were you raping her at the time? A. No. Q. Were you attempting to have sexual intercourse with her at the time? A. No. Q. Did she have her clothes off at that time? A. No. Q. Did you have yours off? A. No. Defendant relies on State v. Poston, 199 Iowa 1073, 203 N.W. 257 (1925), a case in which this court held cross-examination of the prosecutrix had been impermissibly restricted. In the case before us no mention of the above incident was made in cross-examining the victim. It is doubtful the offered testimony could have been admissible as impeachment. See State v. Johnson, 219 N.W.2d 690, 695-96 (Iowa 1974). On appeal defendant argues a prior false accusation of the same offense stands as independent evidence that the charge before the court may never have been committed, citing People v. Hurelbut, 166 Cal. App.2d 334, 333 P.2d 82 (1958). See 81 Am.Jur.2d Witnesses § 537 (1976). This rationale was not asserted below. When evidence apparently inadmissible is offered for a limited purpose, the party making the offer has the burden of making clear to the court his or her theory of admissibility. State v. Arnold, 225 N.W.2d 120, 122 (Iowa 1975); Lemke v. Mueller, 166 N.W.2d 860, 871 (Iowa 1969). Further, a more basic reason for trial court's exclusion of this evidence is apparent. We think the disclosed circumstances surrounding the basement incident were so totally unlike the facts in this case the testimony properly was excluded as irrelevant. The prior remark of the victim obviously was made in jest. Trial court did not abuse its discretion in concluding the statement had no probative value. Accordingly, the judgment below is affirmed. AFFIRMED. All Justices concur except ALLBEE and McGIVERIN, JJ., who take no part.