Rodriguez, Carlos David

Rodriguez was charged with aggravated sexual assault of his stepdaughter, J.G. The defense wanted to present evidence that J.G. alleged, several years after Rodriguez moved out of their home, that her sister was raped by her mother’s then-boyfriend. The defense’s theory was that it was either a false allegation—the sister had denied it and Mom said they were just friends and he did not live there—or evidence of a possible alternative suspect—other children claimed he did live there. The defense alleged that J.G. was motivated to make up the accusation because she was interested in living at her grandmother’s house, which is where her sister went to live after J.G.’s claim against the boyfriend. The trial court allowed the defense to ask J.G. about wanting to live at her grandmother’s house, earlier denials that she was abused by Rodriguez, and prior inconsistent statements about the safety of Mom’s home. But it declined to allow defense counsel to cross-examine J.G. about her outcry concerning her sister’s rape by Mom’s new boyfriend made several years after the charged offense.The trial court said an accusation involving two other individuals was not relevant to the current allegations and, alternatively, could possibly tend to confuse or distract the jury from the main issues, consume an inordinate amount of time, repeat evidence, or suggest a decision on an improper basis.

On appeal, Rodriguez focused on the alleged motive to lie in order to live with her grandmother. The court of appeals affirmed. In a short analysis, it could not say the trial court abused its discretion “by excluding the questions about an accusation involving two other individuals and by determining that the admission of such testimony would confuse the issues and mislead the jury.”

Appellant argues that there is no established evidentiary rule which excludes this evidence, and that Rule 403 should be used sparingly in “he said, she said” cases like his. He argues that the evidence was necessary for his defense and, because J.G.’s alleged motive to lie did not depend on whether her sister was actually raped, would not confuse the jury or unfairly prejudice the State.