Opinion ID: 900747
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Prior Unproven Allegation by Victims

Text: [¶ 23.] Before trial, the State moved in limine to prohibit the defense from disclosing to the jury a prior allegation of sexual contact made by L.R. and N.R. against their grandfather in 1994. The defense resisted, claiming that such evidence was highly relevant to show the predisposed nature of the victims to offer inaccurate accounts of what supposedly occurred. Additionally, Dillon argued that if the trial court granted the State's motion, he would be prohibited from impeaching the credibility of the witnesses. The court forbade any reference at trial to the prior allegation. [¶ 24.] We review evidentiary decisions deferentially, reversing only when the court has abused its discretion. State v. Sieler, 397 N.W.2d 89, 91 (S.D. 1986)(string citation omitted); see also State v. Peterson, 1996 SD 140, ¶ 8, 557 N.W.2d 389, 391. It does not matter if we would have made a similar ruling; rather, we inquire whether a judicial mind, in view of the law and the circumstances, could reasonably have reached that conclusion. Sieler, 397 N.W.2d at 91 (citations omitted). [¶ 25.] In his brief, Dillon offers numerous reasons this evidence should have been admitted. Nearly all of his proposed uses challenge the credibility of the five child victims. For example, he claims that evidence of the 1994 allegation by N.R. and L.R. may show the presence of psychological transference, may present alternative explanations for behavioral manifestations, or may offer alternative reasons for the children's sexual vocabulary. [9] His position is primarily that the evidence should have been admitted to let the jury decide whether or not the children [were] fabricating. [¶ 26.] To use a prior allegation to challenge a victim's credibility, the allegation must be demonstrably false. Sieler, 397 N.W.2d at 92. A mere denial by the alleged perpetrator will not meet this standard. Id. (citing State v. Kringstad, 353 N.W.2d 302, 311 (N.D.1984)). Nor is it enough that the accusation was arguably false. Id. The 1994 allegations were investigated. Both L.R. and N.R. were interviewed, and both were seen by medical professionals and a mental health counselor. The allegations were not prosecuted, however, because in the counselor's opinion, L.R. and N.R. would not have been capable of testifying at trial. Nonetheless, this same counselor opined that the allegations were true. The State's decision to decline to prosecute the allegations does not require an inference that the charges were demonstrably false. Accord Sieler, 397 N.W.2d at 92 (In some instances even a not guilty verdict on an asserted false charge may not be enough to make the prior accusations relevant.) (citations omitted). After our review of the record, we cannot say that the trial court abused its discretion in disallowing the evidence.