State v. Burns, 306 Ga. 117

Background

Burns was charged with aggravated sexual battery, aggravated sodomy, and incest based on a social-media message by his stepdaughter K.R. describing an alleged July 2015 sexual encounter.
The message also included an unrelated statement by K.R.: “And my brother’s best friend tried to rape me,” which K.R. later admitted was made up.
The State moved in limine to exclude evidence of that admitted false statement; the trial court granted the motion under OCGA § 24-4-403 (Rule 403) as more prejudicial than probative.
The trial court certified the evidentiary ruling for interlocutory appeal; the Court of Appeals reversed, relying on Smith v. State and constitutional confrontation/defense-right concerns.
The Supreme Court granted certiorari to reconsider Smith, addressed whether Smith was a constitutional or evidentiary holding, and whether Rule 403 could bar admission of prior-false-allegation evidence in sexual-offense prosecutions.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Smith v. State was a constitutional or evidentiary holding	Smith created a constitutional rule requiring admission of prior-false-allegation evidence	Smith decided that such evidence was admissible as a matter of evidence law and also on constitutional grounds	Smith contained both evidentiary and constitutional language; court treats it as mixed (both law types)
Whether Smith’s constitutional holding was correct and remains binding	Admission of false-allegation evidence is required by Confrontation and Due Process rights	Rules of evidence can limit admission; constitutional rights do not mandate categorical admission	Smith’s constitutional holding was wrongly decided and is overruled
Whether Smith’s evidentiary holding survives the 2011 Evidence Code rewrite	Rape-shield statute does not bar evidence of prior false allegations; Smith’s evidentiary conclusion remains good law	New Evidence Code could have abrogated prior holdings	The evidentiary holding consistent with the Rape Shield statute survives and remains good law under current Evidence Code
Whether OCGA § 24-4-403 permits exclusion of prior-false-allegation evidence in sexual-offense trials	Rule 403 should not be used to exclude such impeachment/substantive evidence per Smith	Rule 403 (probative value vs. unfair prejudice/confusion) applies and may permit exclusion in appropriate cases	Rule 403 applies; it did not justify exclusion here because the false statement was highly probative, not inflammatory or confusing; trial court abused its discretion

Key Cases Cited

Smith v. State, 259 Ga. 135 (1989) (state decision admitting prior false-allegation evidence; Court revisited and partially overruled it)
Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (1975) (summarizes Sixth Amendment defense rights)
Pennsylvania v. Ritchie, 480 U.S. 39 (1987) (Confrontation Clause guarantees cross-examination opportunity)
Delaware v. Fensterer, 474 U.S. 15 (1985) (Confrontation right not absolute; opportunity for effective cross-examination suffices)
Crane v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 683 (1986) (Due Process guarantees meaningful opportunity to present a defense)
United States v. Scheffer, 523 U.S. 303 (1998) (defendant’s right to present evidence is not unlimited)
Nevada v. Jackson, 569 U.S. 505 (2013) (Confrontation Clause does not entitle defendants to introduce extrinsic impeachment evidence as of right)
Holmes v. South Carolina, 547 U.S. 319 (2006) (Rule 403–style exclusions are permissible when proportional and justified)
Montana v. Egelhoff, 518 U.S. 37 (1996) (familiar evidentiary rules permitting exclusion are constitutional)
Michigan v. Lucas, 500 U.S. 145 (1991) (statutory evidentiary restrictions do not automatically become unconstitutional when they limit defense evidence)
Olds v. State, 299 Ga. 65 (2016) (Georgia courts may look to federal Rule 403 jurisprudence when applying OCGA § 24-4-403)