Pantoja v. State, 59 So. 3d 1092

Pantoja was convicted of sexual battery on a child under twelve by a defendant under eighteen and lewd or lascivious molestation by a defendant eighteen or older; he was sentenced to life imprisonment on April 20, 2006.
Appellant challenged the evidence impeaching the victim’s credibility, specifically a prior false accusation against the victim’s uncle, and trial court rulings on cross-examination and impeachment.
The defense sought to admit testimony that the victim had falsely accused her uncle of molestation, arguing it showed bias or motive to lie.
The trial court excluded the prior false-accusation evidence, citing Florida Evidence Code provisions, and the jury did not hear this specific impeachment evidence.
The First District affirmed, disapproved Jaggers to the extent inconsistent, and concluded that sections 90.610, 90.608, and 90.405 did not permit admission of the prior false accusation against a non-defendant.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Impeachment under 90.610 for prior false accusations	Pantoja	State	Prior false accusation not admissible under 90.610.
Bias under 90.608(2) and relevance of prior false accusation	Pantoja sought to show bias from prior false accusation by the victim’s uncle case center	Evidence against uncle does not establish bias towards Pantoja’s case	Prior false accusation against the uncle does not establish bias relevant to this case under 90.608(2).
Character evidence under 90.405(2) and whether prior false accusation is admissible	Opponent argues prior false accusation shows victim lies	Character evidence not essential element; cannot use 90.405 to admit specific misconduct	Not admissible under 90.405(2) as character at issue was not essential.
Confrontation rights and cross-examination about prior false accusations	Cross-examination about prior false accusations to show bias should be allowed	State law limits such cross-examination; no constitutional violation	Confrontation rights not violated; exclusion does not violate the Confrontation Clause.

Roebuck v. State, 953 So.2d 40 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007) (impeachment limited to convictions or dishonesty; 90.610 interpretation)
Fernandez v. State, 730 So.2d 277 (Fla.1999) (impeachment rules limit use of specific acts to convictions or reputation for truth)
Jaggers v. State, 536 So.2d 321 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988) (disputed rule on prior false accusations; conflict with Jaggers recognized)
Davis v. Alaska, 415 U.S. 308 (U.S. 1974) (Confrontation Clause; distinguishes general vs. specific credibility attacks)
Boggs v. Collins, 226 F.3d 728 (6th Cir.2000) (permits/prohibits cross-exam about prior false accusations under constitutional analysis)
Hogan v. Hanks, 97 F.3d 189 (7th Cir.1996) (no constitutional entitlement to cross-examine for prior false accusations)
Tail v. United States, 459 F.3d 854 (8th Cir.2006) (prior false accusations may be excluded if minimal probative value)
United States v. Kenyon, 481 F.3d 1054 (8th Cir.2007) (Evidentiary balancing under 403; probative value vs. prejudice)