Appellate Review of Child Sexual Abuse Convictions: The Importance of Character Evidence

Abstract

This study examined the role of character evidence and other issues in criminal appeals of child sexual abuse (CSA) convictions. Character evidence includes uncharged acts and character witnesses who testify to another’s reputation or opinion and is offered to prove an individual’s propensities. Examining 168 appellate court opinions reviewing CSA convictions between 2005 and 2015 in Maricopa County, Arizona, we found that when specific types of evidence were at issue, they were most often character evidence issues (49%). However, appellate courts virtually never reversed convictions (n = 5), and when defendants did obtain relief, the reduction in charges or in sentences was minor. Of the small number of opinions that were published (n = 4), all focused on character evidence, including the single case reviewed by the Arizona Supreme Court. However, close examination of the published cases suggested they effected only modest change.

Keywords

child sexual abuse court testimony legal aspects

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Anders v. California. 386 S. 738 (1967).

Block

Johnson

H. M.

Williams

L. M.

Shockley

K. L.

Wang

Widaman

K. F.

(2023). Predictors of prosecutorial decisions in reports of child sexual abuse. Child Maltreatment, 28(3), 488–499. https://doi.org/10.1177/10775595221074375

Brewer

K. D.

Rowe

D. M.

Brewer

D. D.

(1997). Factors related to prosecution of child sexual abuse cases. Journal of Child Sexual Abuse, 6(1), 91–111. https://doi.org/10.1300/J070v06n01_07

Bryden

D. P.

Park

R. C.

(1994). Other crimes” evidence in sex offense cases. Minnesota Law Review, 78(3), 529–583. https://heinonline.org/HOL/P?h=hein.journals/mnlr78&i=551

Buller

T. J.

(2015). Public defenders and appointed counsel in criminal appeals: The Iowa experience. Journal of Appellate Practice and Process, 16(2), 183–256. https://heinonline.org/HOL/P?h=hein.journals/jappp16&i=197

Chapper

J. A.

Hanson

R. A.

(1989). Understanding reversible error in criminal appeals. National Center for State Courts. https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.138.7077&rep=rep1&type=pdf

Foley

D. J.

(1999). The Tennessee court of criminal appeals: Study and analysis. Tennessee Law Review, 66(2), 427–466. https://heinonline.org/HOL/P?h=hein.journals/tenn66&i=437

Gottsfield

R. L.

(1997). We just don't get it: Improper admission of other acts under Evidence Rule 404(B) as needless cause of reversal in civil and criminal cases. Arizona Attorney, 33(4), 24–28.

Graham

(1990). State adaptation of the Federal rules: The pros and cons. Oklahoma Law Review, 43(2), 293–314. https://heinonline.org/HOL/P?h=hein.journals/oklrv43&i=305

10.

Heise

King

N. J.

Heise

N. A.

(2017). State criminal appeals revealed. Vanderbilt Law Review, 70(6), 1939–1970. https://heinonline.org/HOL/P?h=hein.journals/vanlr70&i=2002

11.

Imwinkelried (1990). The use of evidence of an accused’s uncharged misconduct to prove mens rea: The doctrines that threaten to engulf the character evidence prohibition. Ohio State Law Review, 51(3), 575–603. https://heinonline.org/HOL/P?h=hein.journals/ohslj51&i=587

12.

Lave

T. R.

Orenstein

(2012). Empirical fallacies of evidence law: A critical look at the admission of prior sex crimes. University of Cincinnati Law Review, 81(3), 795–837.

13.

McClennen

(1990). Admission of evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts under Rule 404(B)—It's time to start following the rules. Arizona Attorney, 26(6), 13–18.

14.

Michelson v. United States. (1948). 335 U.S 469.

15.

Montgomery v. Duncan. 228 Ariz. 514, 269 P.3d 690 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2011).

16.

Mueller

C. B.

Kirkpatrick

L. C.

(2021). Federal evidence (4th ed.). Lawyers Cooperative Publishing.

17.

Myers

J. E. B.

(2021). Myers on evidence of interpersonal violence, child maltreatment, intimate partner violence, rape, stalking, and elder abuse (6th ed.). Aspen Publishers.

18.

Reed

T. J.

(2005). Admitting the accused’s criminal history: The trouble with rule 404(b). Temple Law Review, 78(1), 201–254. https://heinonline.org/HOL/P?h=hein.journals/temple78&i=211

19.

State v. Bucholtz, No. 1 CA-CR 15-0833. (Ariz. Ct. App 2016).

20.

State v. Bustillos, No. 1 CA-CR 16-0187. (Ariz. Ct. App 2017).

21.

State v. Dahnad. 1 CA-CR 06-1024, 2009 WL 325445. (Ariz. Ct. App 2009).

22.

State v. Farr. No. 1 CA-CR 15-0772. (Ariz. Ct. App 2017).

23.

State v. Ferrero. 229 Ariz. 239, 274 P.3d. 509. (Ariz 2012).

24.

State v. Fries. 1 CA-CR 11-0889. Ariz. Ct. (App 2013).

25.

State v. Galvez. No. 1 CA-CR 17-0128. (Ariz. Ct. App 2018).

26.

State v. Garcia. 200 Ariz. 471, 28 P.3d 327 (Ariz. Ct. App 2001).

27.

State v. Gonzales. No. 1 CA-CR 13-0675. (Ariz. Ct. App 2015).

28.

State v. Holland. 1 CA-CR 09-0405. Ariz. Ct. App 2010).

29.

State v. Jensen. 217 Ariz. 345, 173 P.3d 1046 (Ariz. Ct. App 2008).

30.

State v. Jones. No. 1 CA-CR 15-0372. (Ariz. Ct. App 2016).

31.

State v. Lucero. 223 Ariz. 129, 220 P.3d 249 (Ariz. Ct. App 2009).

32.

State v. McFarlin. 110 Ariz, 225, 517. 2d 87 (Ariz 1973).

33.

State v. McVay. 127 Ariz, 450, 622. 2d 9 (Ariz 1980).

34.

State v. Rhodes. 219 Ariz 476, p. 200. 3d 973 (Ariz. Ct. App 2008).

35.

State v. Valdez. 160 Ariz. 9, 770 P.2d 313 (Ariz 1989).

36.

State v. Valentine. No. 1 CA-CR 13-0841. Ariz. Ct. App 2016).

37.

State v. Vega. 228 Ariz. 24, 262 P.3d 628 (Ariz 2011).

38.

Stolzenberg

S. N.

Lyon

T. D.

(2014). Evidence summarized in attorneys' closing arguments predicts acquittals in criminal trials of child sexual abuse. Child Maltreatment, 19(2), 119–129. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077559514539388

39.

Tchividjian

B. J.

(2012). Predators and propensity: The proper approach for determining the admissibility of prior bad acts evidence in child sexual abuse prosecutions. American Journal of Criminal Law, 39(3), 327–378. https://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/lusol_fac_pubs/54

40.

Walsh

W. A.

Jones

L. M.

Cross

T. P.

Lippert

(2010). Prosecuting child sexual abuse: The importance of evidence type. Crime and Delinquency, 56(3), 436–454. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011128708320484

41.

Wandrey

Lyon

T. D.

Quas

J. A.

Friedman

W. F.

(2012). Maltreated children’s ability to estimate temporal location and numerosity of placement changes and court visits. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 18(1), 79–104. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0024812

42.

Waters

N. L.

Gallegos

Green

Rozsi

(2015). Criminal appeals in state courts. U.S. Department of Justice: Bureau of Justice Statistics. https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/#inbox/FMfcgzGpGwtVrkZMnTvjszsHqfHVKtTk?projector=1&messagePartId=0.2

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.11 MB