89 Ohio App. 3d 206 - State v. Boggs’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

4 federal appellate · 9 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 13 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “'in view of the answers given by ... Ms. Berman,' " and denied Boggs' request for a new trial. Id. 28 Boggs then began the appeal process anew. He returned to the Ohio Court of Appeals, assigning the following errors: 29 I. The trial court erred in refusing to allow testimony at the evidentiary hearing from appellant's witnesses as to the alleged victim's prior false accusations of sexual misconduct. Said error deprived appellant of his Ohio and United States constitutional rights to present a defense and to due process of law. 30 II. The trial court erred in refusing to grant Mr. Boggs a new trial. Said error deprived Mr. Boggs of his Ohio and United States constitutional rights to confrontation, cross-examination and due process of law. 31 Id. at 206. 32 On May 6, 1993, the Court of Appeals again reversed the trial court. The appellate court concluded that, although Boggs could not introduce extrinsic evidence of false allegations at trial, he should have been permitted to introduce such evidence at the in camera hearing. The court explained: 33 Our interpretation of the Boggs [Ohio Supreme Court] decision is that it adopts a two-stage procedure to be employed by the courts in handling allegations of prior false rape accusations.... 34 .... 35 The second stage of the proceedings is the in camera hearing (out of the presence of the jury) where the trial court is to actually make the determination of whether the prior false rape accusation involved "sexual activity.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Boggs v. Brigano

2. “[I]f defense counsel inquires of an alleged rape victim as to whether she has made any prior false accusations of rape, and the victim answers no, the trial court would have the discretion to determine whether and to what extent defense counsel can proceed with cross-examination. However, if the alleged victim answers in the affirmative, the trial court would have to conduct an in camera hearing to determine whether sexual activity had been involved. If the trial court determined that the accusations were entirely false (that is, that no sexual activity had been involved) the trial court would then be permitted to exercise its discretion in determining whether to permit defense counsel to proceed with cross-examination of the alleged victim. We therefore hold that where an alleged rape victim admits on cross-examination that she has made a prior false rape accusation, the trial judge shall conduct an in camera hearing to ascertain whether sexual activity was involved and, as a result, would be prohibited by R.C. 2907.02(D), or whether the accusation was totally unfounded and therefore could be inquired into on cross-examination pursuant to Evid.R. 608(B).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Boggs v. Collins

3. “without considering extrinsic evidence. 36 .... 37 The court below was ordered to conduct an in camera hearing to determine whether the alleged prior false rape accusations were unfounded. The instructions on remand expressly noted the absence of any evidence of prior false rape accusations from the record and would seem to indicate that such evidence was to be taken.... For these reasons, we hold that appellant was entitled to introduce extrinsic evidence below in order to carry his burden of showing that the prior false rape accusations were unfounded and did not involve”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Boggs v. Brigano