Background
Brian K. Johnson was charged with five counts of sexual battery against his stepniece, K.M., based on alleged conduct in 2013. The jury acquitted him on three counts but convicted him on count two, alleged to have occurred beside a house, and count four, alleged to have occurred at a house under construction. He received twenty years in prison followed by ten years of sex-offender probation.
During a November 2013 child-protection investigation, K.M. denied having sex with Johnson but alleged that her stepfather had sexually abused her. K.M. did not accuse Johnson of sexual abuse until 2020. The trial court allowed defense counsel to establish that K.M. had made abuse allegations against her mother and stepfather, but barred questioning about the sexual nature of the stepfather allegation.
The Court’s Holding
The Second District held that the trial court abused its discretion by limiting cross-examination about the sexual nature of K.M.’s allegation against her stepfather. That evidence was relevant to Johnson’s defense that K.M.’s later allegations against him were fabricated: it would show that, during the same 2013 investigation in which she denied abuse by Johnson, she was willing to report allegedly sexual abuse by another person.
The error was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Johnson’s guilt depended largely on whether the jury believed K.M. rather than Johnson, and the jury had acquitted him of three charged offenses. The excluded evidence could have affected the jury’s assessment of K.M.’s credibility, particularly alongside testimony that she had told her grandmother she made up an allegation about Johnson after a dispute with a boy.
Key Takeaways
- A defendant may cross-examine a sexual-battery complainant about relevant prior disclosures that support a fabrication defense.
- The sexual nature of another abuse allegation may be material when it contrasts with a contemporaneous denial of the charged sexual abuse.
- Where the case substantially turns on the complainant’s credibility, improperly restricted cross-examination may not be harmless.
Why It Matters
The decision reinforces that evidentiary limits on cross-examination must yield when excluded evidence is relevant to a defendant’s ability to present a full and fair defense. The court reversed only counts two and four and remanded for a new trial on those counts.