Opinion ID: 2565993
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 11

Heading: Statement of Specific Facts:

Text: [¶ 44] Before trial in this case, Mr. Lopez's counsel filed a Motion in Limine  Reference to Defendant Being Sexually Abused as a Child. The motion asked for an order instructing the prosecutor ... to refrain from using as evidence or making any direct or indirect mention whatsoever to the fact that Mr. Lopez was sexually abused as a child. The motion stated that Mr. Lopez told law enforcement that he was sexually abused as a child. The state intends to use such evidence to argue that individuals that [sic] are sexually abused are likely to abuse children. Mr. Lopez argued that whether he was abused as a child was not relevant to the issues in this case, and, further, that [t]here is no scientific proof to support the state's theory. Finally, counsel contended that the evidence was dangerously close to inadmissible character/propensity evidence, and that the danger of unfair prejudice substantially outweighs any probative value. [¶ 45] Counsel's motion in limine was argued in a motions hearing. The trial court heard argument from Mr. Lopez's counsel and from the prosecutor regarding the admissibility of Mr. Lopez's statement, made to Detective Ray Bilkie during a taped interview, that he had been sexually abused when he was a child. The court initially observed that one of Mr. Lopez's admissions to the detective was admissible under an exception to the hearsay rule because he admitted having been alone with the child at certain critical periods of time. It seems to me that that admission would be admissible, but his reference to having been abused himself I think would not be admissible by the State. The court stated that the reference to Mr. Lopez's having himself suffered abuse was not an admission, but rather, a denial, because it constituted an explanation that Mr. Lopez was aware of the harm that sexual abuse might inflict. [¶ 46] The prosecutor responded that any statement by Mr. Lopez came within the scope of W.R.E. 801(d)(2), whether or not it was against the interest of the declarant. The court expressed its opinion that, to qualify under W.R.E. 801(d)(2), a statement had to be an admission  that is, it had to be against the declarant's interest. The prosecutor pointed to the fact that Rule 801(d)(2) referred to a statement by a party, not to an admission by a party. The court maintained its position that Rule 801(d)(2) applied only to admissions, and the prosecutor offered to provide further authority. The prosecutor further represented that it did not intend to argue that, because Mr. Lopez was abused as a child, ... he probably abused [CS]. Rather, the prosecutor proposed to use Mr. Lopez's statement so that the jury could be informed as to the honest and true answer that Mr. Lopez gave to Detective Bilkie when asked the questions. The prosecutor's position was the Mr. Lopez's answers to Detective Bilkie's questions were not a denial of having sexually abused CS but were a nondenial at best and ambiguous. [¶ 47] The court persisted in its view that a statement covered by W.R.E. 801(d)(2) must be against the declarant's interest and stated that the reference to his own abuse may need to be redacted. We'll have to look at some cases on that. Finally, without ruling further, the court directed that the hearing proceed to the next motion. The court did not enter a written order embodying its ruling on this motion in limine. [¶ 48] At trial, during the prosecutor's case and immediately before the testimony of Detective Bilkie, the prosecutor presented authority to constitute an admission against his interest in order to be admissible under W.R.E. 801(d)(2), citing 4 Mueller and Kirkpatrick, Federal Evidence § 411 (2d ed.1994). Mr. Lopez's counsel responded that Mr. Lopez never admitted guilt. The court observed that the probative value of Mr. Lopez's statement was dubious from  especially from the State's point of view. However, the court went on: To the extent that it corroborates some of the alleged victim's testimony, I still think that it's an admission to that extent, but I feel inclined to change the ruling on the inadmissibility of his statement of his own sexual abuse. [¶ 49] During the subsequent direct examination of Detective Bilkie, the prosecutor questioned him regarding Mr. Lopez's interview at the police department on March 7, 2001, but did not refer to Mr. Lopez's assertion, made at that time, that he had been sexually abused when he was a child. When the prosecutor offered the audio tape of the interview and the transcription of the audio tape into evidence, the court sustained Mr. Lopez's objection. [¶ 50] During cross-examination of Detective Bilkie, Mr. Lopez's counsel questioned him as to the details of Mr. Lopez's statements during the interview. The prosecutor asked for a bench conference, at which he asserted that the answers given by Mr. Lopez to Detective Bilkie's questions should be given in their entirety. Mr. Lopez's counsel responded, in essence, that she was only using selective portions of Mr. Lopez's statement and was not opening the door to the entire statement. The trial court responded, Well, I think we're about 100th of an inch making this entire thing admissible. Mr. Lopez's counsel responded that she would just rephrase how I'm doing it. [¶ 51] The defense called Mr. Lopez as its first and only witness. During direct examination, Mr. Lopez admitted that on the occasion in question he had wrestled with CS and had tickled her feet and knees but denied that he had tickled her private area. The direct examination concluded: Q. You went and talked to Detective Bilkie at some point? A. Yes, I did. Q. You didn't have to go? A. No. Q. Why did you go? A. Because he asked me to come down and make a statement, and tell me what the allegations were because, at that time, I didn't know. I said, Yeah, I'd come down. Q. You told him that you didn't tickle her in her private area? A. That's right.     Q. You told the detective you didn't do it? A. Yes, I did tell him. Q. And it wasn't good enough? A. No. Q. And you still ended up getting charged? A. Yes, I did. Q. Afraid of being convicted for something you didn't do? A. Exactly. Q. You didn't do this, did you? A. No, I did not do this. [¶ 52] On cross-examination, the prosecutor inquired into Mr. Lopez's statement to Detective Bilkie: Q. And in fact, when you were first asked whether or not you could have accidentally inadvertently tickled her somewhere else where she may have construed it as something sexual where you didn't actually mean it to be, you did not deny touching [CS] in response to that question, did you? A. I believe I did. Q. Would you like to read your answer? A. Please. Q. Again, I'd be happy to play the tape. A. Just say the answer. Avoid all that stuff, all that wasted time. Q. At the top, the highlighted portion, Detective Bilkie's question, you don't say, I didn't do it, did you? A. In a roundabout way, yes I did. [Prosecutor]: Your Honor, at this point in time, I think the defendant could read his answer that he gave to Detective Bilkie into the record. Mr. Lopez's counsel objected that Mr. Lopez had answered the question by saying he did not do it, and that this was an accurate characterization of what Mr. Lopez had stated to Detective Bilkie. The prosecutor responded that Mr. Lopez's statement to Detective Bilkie was not a flat denial, as he had characterized it. Mr. Lopez's counsel countered that the State has been told that they can't go into this, and they're using cross-examination trying to goad the defendant into saying something so they can get around a court order; that the State is inappropriately using cross-examination to get him to open the door so they can bypass the Court's order. The prosecutor rejoined that Mr. Lopez's counsel had opened the door on her direct examination of Mr. Lopez by eliciting his answer that he had said he didn't do it. [¶ 53] The court ruled that the prosecutor had been prohibited from offering this in its case-in-chief. The State complied with that. We've gotten to the point now in the state of the record where on cross-examination I just think it's admissible. Mr. Lopez's objection to the prosecutor's cross-examination was overruled. [¶ 54] The prosecutor resumed cross-examination of Mr. Lopez: Q .... turning again to Page 17 of the transcript of your interview with Detective Bilkie, would you please read Detective Bilkie's question to you? A. Was there a chance in all of this where she's kicking and moving around, and you're tickling her that maybe you accidentally or inadvertently tickled her somewhere else where  where she may have construed it as something sexual where you didn't actually mean to do it? To be honest  this is my statement  To be honest with you, I'll  I'll tell you right now, like I said, I've been abused physically, sexually, psychologically through most of my childhood. Right there, you're just turning my words around right there. Mr. Lopez acknowledged that this was his answer to Detective Bilkie's question. The prosecutor's cross-examination of Mr. Lopez continued with questions asking him about the details of what happened on February 17 and 18, 2001. [¶ 55] On redirect examination, Mr. Lopez's counsel asked Mr. Lopez to read an additional portion of his statement to Detective Bilkie which immediately followed that part about which Mr. Lopez had testified on cross-examination. After repeating his statement that he had been abused physically, sexually, psychologically through most of [his] childhood, Mr. Lopez added: Mr. Bilkie, Okay. This is me, When I wrestle with these kids I make sure my hands never go around those areas. Mr. Bilkie: Of course. Of course. At the end of Mr. Lopez's redirect examination, the defense rested. The prosecutor asked that Mr. Lopez's entire statement be played for the jury. The court ruled that the jury would be given the transcript of Mr. Lopez's statement to Detective Bilkie, and admitted State's Exhibit 7 into evidence.