Prior False Allegations in Sex Crime Cases

There has been a long-standing conflict among Florida courts that the Fourth District Court of Appeals recently weighed in on.  In Harvey v. State, Case No. 4D08-3607 (decided September 22, 2010), the Fourth District held that when an alleged victim of sexual assault testifies at trial, the fact that she had previously falsely accused someone of sexual assault cannot be used to contradict her accusations.  This ruling is a disappointing blow to the individual liberties of criminal defendants.

Without the ability to prove or disprove the veracity of an alleged victim’s character, juries are at a loss to fulfill their primary function: finders of fact.  When the State’s case is based on nothing more than an alleged victim’s accusations, why shouldn’t the accused be allowed to delve into other instances of dishonesty in similar situations?

In Jaggers v. State, (decided in 1988) the Second District Court of Appeals held the opposite, that a prior false accusation of sexual abuse or assault can come in when the sole evidence against the accused is the alleged victim’s testimony.  The First District Court of Appeals later held in Pantoja v. State (decided in 2008) that such statements are not admissible in any circumstances.  And now, the Fourth District has come down on the side of the First.

Florida’s evidence code forbids use of “prior bad acts” as impeachment of a witness.  Generally speaking, when a witness is on the stand, an attorney cannot claim that the witness is being dishonest because the witness has lied about something else in the past or behaved in an immoral manner.  However, the facts in Harvey, Pantoja, and Jaggers did not deal with general accusations of misconduct, but rather very specific acts of dishonest: prior accusations of sexual abuse that the victim later admitted were false.

How is this not relevant to a trial where the sole evidence against the accused is the victim’s accusations?  This principle creates the potential for the greatest evil that criminal justice system can commit: a conviction of those not guilty.

The Florida Supreme Court has recently granted review of the cases dealing with this principle.  I can only hope that the Justices recognize the danger created by not allowing an alleged victim’s prior similar false accusations to be admitted to a jury.

If you are facing allegations of sexual abuse, don’t face it alone.  Visit my website at www.shafercriminallaw.com or call me at (904)350-9333 for a free consultation.

~Robert Shafer

Juvenile Sexual Offenders in Florida

The First District Court of Appeals recently made a landmark decision that greatly effects the juvenile criminal justice system in Florida.  In K.J.F. v. State, Case No. 1D10-1539 (decided September 30, 2010) the Court held that, unlike adults, juveniles who are found to have committed certain sexual offenses only have to register as sex offenders (a life-long designation) if the Court adjudicates them delinquent and determines them to be a threat to society.  This appeal was litigated by one of my associates, Cory Simmons.

This decision is important because it underlines the need for rehabilitation in Florida’s juvenile justice system.  By allowing circuit court judges to distinguish between dangerous offenders that should be placed in a public registry and offenders that may be rehabilitated with the proper treatment, the Court has ensured that children who are at low-risk to re-offend are not labeled as sex offenders and exiled from society at a young age.

I applaud the First District Court of Appeals for this decision.  It underlines the need for psychological treatment to address potentially serious problems in our society.  After all, the goal of the juvenile justice system is rehabilitation, not punishment.

If you or a loved one are facing involvement in the juvenile justice system, don’t face it alone.  Visit my website at www.shafercriminallaw.com or call me at (904)350-9333 for a free consultation.

~Robert Shafer

Sex Offender/Predator Registration

“Being forced to register as a sex offender is not punishment.  It’s just a way of letting the public know about people convicted of certain crimes. Registration as a sex offender in no way effects a person’s rights.“

That’s the position that the Florida Legislature has taken regarding the harsh, draconian punishment of registration as a sexual offender or predator. It’s a ludicrous position, and I will tell you why.

Being forced to register as a sexual offender twice a year in a database that is searchable by the public is perhaps one of the most humiliating and destabilizing punishments that the judiciary can impose. If an offender fails to register or fails to update any of his contact information, he or she will be prosecuted for a second degree felony that requires mandatory prison time. Does this sound like a harmless sanction?

It is not my position that no one should be forced to register as a sexual offender or a sexual predator. There are many deeply disturbed individuals in our society whose presence should be known and accounted for. Those who target young children, those who have shown violent sexual tendencies, and those who suffer from mental disorders that lead them to target others should be watched very closely by the government. Registration is often an appropriate punishment for these individuals.  However, Florida Law does not consider individual cases: every single person who is convicted, pleads guilty, or pleads nolo contendere to a sex crime must register. .. for the rest of their life.

The first step in using this societal tool in a responsible and accurate manner is recognizing that it is a punishment. The second is recognizing that not everyone accused of a sexual crime should be punished as a chronic offender or predator. I have represented many eighteen year old males who had sex with their sixteen year old girlfriends and were prosecuted for it. These young men should not have to register. I have represented upstanding adults who have been accused of crimes and pled nolo contendere to sex charges because they feared a trial where it would simply be their word against that of a credible, albeit alleged, victim. I have represented people who, in a rare bout of extreme intoxication, went too far with a person they were already romantically involved with. Are these people predators? Do they deserve the lifelong stigma of being searched out on a public database? Do they deserve to be sent to prison for living too close to a school where their child may attend, or for neglecting to give the government their new address?

There is no easy answer to these questions, but I have handled cases where the deciding factor is an experienced attorney who can portray their client as a person, not a monster. If you are facing prosecution for a sex crime, don’t face it alone. Visit my website at www.shafercriminallaw.com or call me at (904)350-9333 for a free consultation.