Court Opinion

ID: 9774739
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 18:32:20.285185+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:32:14.992579
License: Public Domain

BYERS, Judge,
concurring.
I concur with the result reached in this case. However, I do not agree that the attempt to cross-examine the prosecuting witness about what another person related to him about a magazine article should have been excluded as hearsay.
The defendant was attempting to show a motive for the alleged victim to falsely accuse him of a sexual assault. To this end, the defendant was attempting to establish that the alleged victim was aware of an article in a magazine, which discussed a monetary judgment obtained against a sheriff by a prisoner who had been the victim of a sexual assault.
In my view, the defendant was not attempting to introduce this evidence as an assertion of the truth of the matters contained in the article. He was only attempting to show the alleged victim was aware of the possibility of obtaining a monetary judgment in a case of sexual assault on a prisoner. In this context, it makes no difference whether the person who told the alleged victim about the article accurately reported the article or not. What the alleged victim knew and believed about the possibility of obtaining a monetary judgment was the crux of this line of questioning, and thus the evidence sought in this manner was not excludable as hearsay.
I am of the opinion, however, that this was harmless error because the record shows the alleged victim did not learn of this article until after the sexual attack.