Court Opinion

ID: 9737891
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 19:36:29.916338+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:02.359098
License: Public Domain

KIRSCH, Judge,
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
I concur with the majority's holding that the trial court properly excluded evidence of the prosecuting witness' alleged past sexual activity pursuant to our rape shield statute. I concur also with the majority's holdings that the admission into evidence of the vie-tim's prior consistent statement was error. It is from the majority's conclusions that the introduction of thé three photographs was not error and the admission of the prior statement was harmless that I respectfully dissent.
The three photographs at issue serve no purpose other than to prejudice the jury against the defendant. The prosecutor's comments in response to the defendant's relevancy objection are telling:
"First of all, counsel himself first raised this by introducing ... defendant's exhibit 'B' into evidence. A letter in which these three photographs were specifically referenced. He raised that part. And second of all, the information I believe is relevant to the question of what the defendant would have us believe about himself."
Record at 292. (Emphasis supplied). In actuality, the prosecutor first identified the three exhibits during the direct examination of the prosecuting witness, Record at 196, before the introduction of the letter to which the prosecutor refers. Record at 209-10. The prosecutor then had the photographs *58identified by four other witnesses without reference to the letter. Record at 217, 225, 290, 306. Finally, we have the prosecutor's own statement that the information is relevant to the defendant's character.
Similarly, the introduction of the prosecuting witness' written statement-a statement which was neither verified, nor dated-served no purpose other than to allow the prosecutor to repeat the testimony of such witness on rebuttal. It was this very "drumbeat of repetition" that our supreme court condemned in Modesitt v. State (1991), Ind., 578 N.E.2d 649, 653.
Child sexual abuse cases, such as that now before us, present unique challenges to the prosecution, the defense and the courts. Such cases inevitably turn upon the fact finder's determination of credibility of the prosecuting witness and of the defendant. The present case is no different. The jury chose to believe the prosecuting witness after the defendant's character was improperly impeached through prejudicial and irrelevant photographs and the witness' testimony was improperly bolstered by the introduction of the witness' prior consistent statement.
I would reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand for a new trial.