151 A.3d 533
N.H.2016Background
- Defendant Jamie Letarte (victim's father) was convicted by a jury of aggravated felonious sexual assault and felony indecent exposure based on a February 2012 incident when the victim was ~13.
- Defense theory: victim had motive to fabricate — she allegedly threatened another family member (the witness) that she could falsely accuse him of rape to get him out of a house after being caught drinking liquor the defendant provided.
- During opening, defense previewed the witness’s testimony and proffered that the witness would testify the victim threatened to accuse him; the trial court initially said such evidence might be admissible and allowed cross-examination of the victim on the topic.
- On cross-examination the victim denied making any such threat; the State objected to calling the witness to prove the threat by extrinsic evidence under N.H. R. Ev. 608(b) (collateral-issue/extrinsic-evidence bar).
- The trial court held a hearing, concluded the Ellsworth exception (for prior false sexual-assault accusations) did not apply to a mere threatened accusation, excluded the witness’s extrinsic testimony, and denied the defendant’s post-trial motion for a new trial. Defendant appealed; the Supreme Court of New Hampshire affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Letarte's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether extrinsic evidence of a prior threatened false sexual-assault accusation is admissible under the Ellsworth exception to Rule 608(b) | Ellsworth exception is narrow; applies only to prior demonstrably false allegations of sexual assault, not mere threats | The witness’s testimony fits Ellsworth and should be admissible to show victim’s motive to fabricate | Court: Ellsworth does not apply to an unexecuted threat; exclusion was within discretion |
| Whether extrinsic evidence may be used under Vandebogart/impeachment-by-contradiction to rebut victim’s denial on cross-examination | Extrinsic impeachment by contradiction is limited; here the questioning attacked victim’s general truthfulness and falls under 608(b) bar | Vandebogart permits extrinsic contradiction of cross-exam testimony; defense had right to present witness to contradict victim’s denial | Court: Vandebogart does not create a right here; defense sought to prove propensity to lie (608(b)), so extrinsic evidence properly excluded |
| Whether trial court’s reversal of its provisional admissibility ruling (after defense relied on it in opening) required vacatur or new trial | Court’s correction of a provisional ruling did not produce reversible error absent a developed showing of prejudice | Letarte claims he relied on court’s preliminary statement and was prejudiced when witness was excluded, violating due process and fair trial rights | Court: Defendant failed to develop the due process claim and did not show reversible error; denial of new trial affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Ellsworth, 142 N.H. 710 (1998) (creates narrow exception allowing extrinsic evidence of prior demonstrably false sexual-assault accusations in limited circumstances)
- State v. Vandebogart, 139 N.H. 145 (1994) (upheld discretionary admission of extrinsic impeachment contradicting defendant’s cross-exam testimony)
- State v. Miller, 155 N.H. 246 (2007) (interprets Ellsworth as requiring prior allegations be demonstrably false — clearly and convincingly untrue)
- State v. Hopkins, 136 N.H. 272 (1992) (explains collateral-issue rule limiting extrinsic impeachment under Rule 608(b))
- Perez–Perez v. United States, 72 F.3d 224 (1st Cir. 1995) (discusses general rule barring extrinsic contradiction on collateral matters)