United States v. Arias, No. 18-2604 (8th Cir. 2019)
Annotate this Case
Defendant appealed his conviction of three counts of aggravated sexual abuse of a child. The Eighth Circuit held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the testimony of two witnesses that claimed they were sexually assaulted by defendant in order to establish a pattern of behavior; defendant had an opportunity to cross-examine witnesses; and the district court did not abuse its discretion when it denied the motion for mistrial where, considering the nature of the charged offenses and the evidence against defendant, a blurted comment that he had previously committed a parole violation was not the sort of evidence that would create an overwhelming probability that the jury would be unable to follow the curative instruction.
However, the court held that defendant had a constitutionally protected opportunity for effective cross-examination regarding the victim's PTSD testimony, and the court was unable to determine whether the failure to allow access to the records was a permissible limitation on cross-examination or whether defendant was denied access to information that might dramatically undermine the testimony of his accuser, the sole eyewitness to the assault. Accordingly, the court remanded the case for the limited purpose of conducting an in camera review of the records to determine the appropriate course of action.
Court Description: Erickson, Author, with Colloton and Kelly, Circuit Judges] Criminal Case - Conviction. Following conviction for aggravated sexual abuse of a child, defendant appeals from admission of prior sexual misconduct and denial of motion for mistrial following testimony of prior incarceration and victim?s post-assault diagnosis. The district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting two witnesses aimed to establish a pattern of behavior; defendant had opportunity to cross-examine witnesses. Court did not abuse its discretion in denying mistrial for reference to parole violation, as district court immediately struck testimony and provided a curative instruction. Arias claims court?s decision to allow victim to testify of diagnosis of PTSD after the alleged assault and denial of request for medical records violated his Confrontation Clause rights. Because the records were not produced it is not possible to determine whether the failure to produce the records was harmless; thus, the case is remanded for the limited purpose of conducting an in camera review to evaluate whether the failure to access the mental health records was harmless. Judge Colloton dissents. [ August 23, 2019
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.