State v. Doyle

A defendant may, in front of a jury, cross-examine a plaintiff about previously made accusations if "(1) the plaintiff recanted; (2) the defendant demonstrates to the court that those accusations were false; or (3) there is some evidence the plaintiff made prior false accusations, unless the 'probative value of the evidence…is substantially outweighed by the risk of prejudice, confusion, embarrassment or delay.'” State v. LeClair, 83 Or App 121, 129-30, 730 P2d 9 (1986).

Defendant appealed from a conviction of Sexual Abuse in the First Degree. Defendant assigned error to the trial court's refusal to allow him to cross-examine the victim regarding accusations of sexual abuse she had made in the past. On appeal, Defendant argued, under LeClair, the cross-examination should have been allowed because (1) the victim recanted allegations against her father and brothers, “(2) there was ‘some evidence’ the allegations against her father, brothers, and stepfather were false,” and (3) the evidence would be more probative than prejudicial or confusing. State v. LeClair, 83 Or App 121, 730 P2d 9 (1986). In response, the State argued that there was no evidence of false accusations by the victim of sexual abuse. A defendant may, in front of a jury, cross-examine a plaintiff about previously made accusations if "(1) the plaintiff recanted; (2) the defendant demonstrates to the court that those accusations were false; or (3) there is some evidence the plaintiff made prior false accusations, unless the 'probative value of the evidence…is substantially outweighed by the risk of prejudice, confusion, embarrassment or delay.'” LeClair, 83 Or App at 129-30. The Court concluded that the victim had not conclusively recanted her past allegations. The Court held that, despite some evidence that the victim’s accusations might be false, introducing it to the jury on cross-examination would create unnecessary confusion and delay rather than hold substantial probative value. Affirmed.