D. W. H. v. State of Alabama

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 08/24/2012 Notice: T h i s o p i n i o n i s s u b j e c t t o formal r e v i s i o n b e f o r e p u b l i c a t i o n i n t h e advance s h e e t s o f Southern R e p o r t e r . R e a d e r s a r e r e q u e s t e d t o n o t i f y t h e R e p o r t e r o f D e c i s i o n s , Alabama A p p e l l a t e C o u r t s , 300 D e x t e r A v e n u e , M o n t g o m e r y , A l a b a m a 3 6 1 0 4 - 3 7 4 1 ((334) 2 2 9 - 0 6 4 9 ) , o f a n y t y p o g r a p h i c a l o r o t h e r e r r o r s , i n o r d e r t h a t c o r r e c t i o n s may b e made b e f o r e t h e o p i n i o n i s p r i n t e d i n Southern R e p o r t e r . ALABAMA COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OCTOBER TERM, 2011-2012 CR-10-0831 D.W.H. v. S t a t e o f Alabama Appeal from Elmore C i r c u i t (CC-10-101) JOINER, Judge. D.W.H. was c o n v i c t e d sodomy, Court of four s e e § 13A-6-63, A l a . Code sentenced conviction D.W.H. counts 1975. t o 204 months' and ordered that of first-degree The c i r c u i t imprisonment t h e sentences were court on to each run CR-10-0831 concurrently. A d d i t i o n a l l y , the c i r c u i t court ordered t o p a y a $250 c r i m e - v i c t i m - c o m p e n s a t i o n costs. D.W.H. f i l e d denied. This At appeal trial, a motion assessment and c o u r t f o r a new t r i a l , evidence tended t o e s t a b l i s h the f o l l o w i n g : S.H. t e s t i f i e d t h a t a t t h e t i m e o f t r i a l s h e was 16 i n M i l l b r o o k w i t h h e r mother, s t e p f a t h e r , sister, and brother. father. S.H. s t a t e d weekend." w h i c h was followed. the State's years o l d and l i v e d D.W.H. S.H. t e s t i f i e d that she v i s i t e d ( R . 6 9 . ) S.H. t e s t i f i e d , did n o t want t o s e e h i m . mad easily" that D.W.H. i s D.W.H. " e v e r y her other however, t h a t she r e a l l y S.H. s t a t e d t h a t D.W.H. w o u l d " g e t and " y e l l e d . " ( R . 7 0 . ) S.H. s t a t e d t h a t she s t a r t e d r e m e m b e r i n g t h i n g s t h a t h a d h a p p e n e d t o h e r a n d "was having a described l o t o f nightmares about the past," which she a s " f l a s h b a c k s . " ( R . 7 1 . ) S.H. t e s t i f i e d flashbacks "were o f [ h e r ] abuse when that the [D.W.H.] w o u l d h i t [ h e r ] ( R . 72.) S.H. occurred testified the f i r s t incident of sexual abuse i n M i l l b r o o k a t " [ h e r ] o l d h o u s e " when h e r m o t h e r a n d D.W.H. were s t i l l this that first married. (R. 73.) S.H. s t a t e d t h a t during i n c i d e n t s h e "was i n [her] room a n d [D.W.H.] w o u l d 2 CR-10-0831 start hitting off, (R. [D.W.H.] w o u l d r i p [her] t a k e h i s o f f , and t h e n s t i c k h i s p e n i s 72.) holler had [her] a n d t h e n S.H. s t a t e d t h a t t h i s and k i c k . " (R. 72.) clothes i n [her] b u t t . " " w o u l d make [her] scream and S.H. f u r t h e r s t a t e d t h a t D.W.H. a " w h i p t y p e t h i n g " a n d w o u l d h i t h e r w i t h i t on h e r "head and [her] back." first (R. 74.) S.H. t e s t i f i e d i n c i d e n t no one was home. i n c i d e n t D.W.H. l e f t that that during S.H. s t a t e d t h a t this after the t h e house a n d d i d n o t r e t u r n u n t i l late night. S.H. testified that a second incident occurred a u n t ' s h o u s e i n M i l l b r o o k when S.H. was 10 y e a r s o l d . at her S.H. s t a t e d t h a t she went t o h e r c o u s i n ' s room a n d p l a y e d w i t h some toys, a n d D.W.H. came i n t o t h e room a n d " p i c k e d t h r e w [ h e r ] " o n t o t h e b e d . (R. 78-9.) then "forced testified [her] t o stroke painful" h i s penis." and t h a t (R. 80.) she k i c k e d up and S.H. s t a t e d t h a t D.W.H. t h a t D.W.H. t h e n t o o k h i s c l o t h e s p e n i s i n [her] b u t t . " [her] (R. 80.) S.H. o f f and "put h i s S.H. s t a t e d t h a t i t was " v e r y D.W.H. S.H. f u r t h e r testified t h a t D.W.H. h e l d a gun t o h e r h e a d d u r i n g t h e i n c i d e n t . S.H. t e s t i f i e d Creek i n Elmore that a t h i r d County. i n c i d e n t occurred a t Mortar S.H. s t a t e d 3 that s h e went "mud CR-10-0831 r i d i n g " w i t h D.W.H. and that, a t some p o i n t , D.W.H. t o l d h e r S.H. D.W.H. g o t S.H. into after the S.H. t e s t i f i e d s h e a n d D.W.H. were b y t h e m s e l v e s a n d "to get stated that, some f a m i l y f r i e n d s . i n the she got back o f the into back w i t h her truck." (R. 86.) the back o f the and t o l d her t o l i e down. s t a t e d t h a t D.W.H. t h e n t o o k o f f h e r c l o t h e s and penis i n [her] painful rear." and t h a t (R. 88.) she t o l d D.W.H. t h e n h i t h e r S.H. t e s t i f i e d him t o stop. turned tooquick" and, in she s a i d , "put that [her] his i t was S.H. s t a t e d on t h e b a c k o f t h e h e a d . t h a t D.W.H. t h e n " s h o v e d h i s p e n i s truck, that S.H. t e s t i f i e d mouth, b u t " i t didn't [she] go i n [her] mouth." S.H. house-- a County. was t e s t i f i e d that a fourth incident occurred at friend i n Elmore her was l o c a t e d S.H. s t a t e d t h a t when she went i n s i d e t h e h o u s e "a l o t o f smoke e v e r y w h e r e . " D.W.H. t o l d h e r talk o f D.W.H.'s--which Dorie's t o her. clothes t o go t o t h e S.H. s t a t e d clothes o f f her. other that b u t she r e f u s e d (R. 91.) S.H. t e s t i f i e d there that room b e c a u s e he n e e d e d t o D.W.H. o r d e r e d h e r and t h a t D.W.H. t h e n t o remove took h e r S.H. t e s t i f i e d t h a t D.W.H. t h e n " s h o v e d h i s 4 CR-10-0831 penis this i n [her] (R. 92.) S.H. t e s t i f i e d i n c i d e n t D.W.H. h i t h e r w i t h S.H. her butt." testified t h a t she the t o l d her during "whip t y p e t h i n g . " s t e p f a t h e r , J.E.S., f r i e n d what D.W.H. d i d t o h e r . t e l l i n g J . E . S . she that S.H. s t a t e d t o l d h e r m o t h e r , and that and after t h e y t h e n went t o the police. Dr. Penny White t e s t i f i e d as a m e d i c a l d o c t o r Dr. University child-sex-abuse was e m p l o y e d f o r Montgomery P r i m a r y H e a l t h C a r e C e n t e r . White t e s t i f i e d Howard t h a t i n 2009 she that she earned her a n d h a s been examinations. than 2,500 m e d i c a l degree qualified Dr. from a s an e x p e r t i n W h i t e s t a t e d t h a t she h a s examined more children for career. Dr. W h i t e t e s t i f i e d t h a t she sexual abuse e x a m i n e d S.H. 18, 2009, a t Montgomery P r i m a r y H e a l t h C a r e C e n t e r . i n her on A u g u s t Dr. White f u r t h e r t e s t i f i e d t h a t , d u r i n g t h e p h y s i c a l e x a m i n a t i o n , S.H. complained that she " m i n u t e o r two" t o c a l m down. examination penetration" Dr. was h u r t i n g revealed but the Dr. "suggestive "anal W h i t e s t a t e d t h a t S.H. t h e r e c t u m i t s e l f had a n d she had t o give White t e s t i f i e d evidence of f i n d i n g s were n o r m a l . " "had a split i n her that her vaginal (R. 162.) hymen ... b u t ... m i n i m a l r e l a x a t i o n t h e r e . 5 S.H. a But there CR-10-0831 was me n o t - - t h a t was t o say 65.) there n o t e v i d e n c e - - i t was was e v i d e n c e of n o t d i l a t e d enough f o r anal penetration." 164¬ d i d not d i s c l o s e t o her Dr. W h i t e s t a t e d t h a t S.H. (R. that t h e r e had b e e n v a g i n a l i n t e r c o u r s e ; r a t h e r , S.H. "he had p u t i t i n h e r b a c k s i d e . " that i t i s very because the easily." "just vaginal fit girls, ... probably trauma." [S.H.'s] wake up wear involving that S.H. that the sexual penetration and tear that and " f o r k i d s who say a n a l l y , when t h e y do have f i n d i n g s , about Dr. 30 percent of them w i l l White concluded t h a t her have "findings that he i s S.H.'s s t e p f a t h e r . b e g a n h a v i n g n i g h t m a r e s where she S.H. D.W.H. police testified t i s s u e , so i t b r e a k s more i n the middle of the n i g h t screaming. testified that story." J.E.S. t e s t i f i e d testified show White f u r t h e r t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e y were p e n e t r a t e d little doesn't t h e hymen i s " f r a g i l e Dr. Dr. W h i t e f u r t h e r u n u s u a l t o have e v i d e n c e o f a n a l rectum damage," b u t t o l d her same day told J.E.S. that him about testified S.H. abuse. that sexual they d i s c l o s e d the 6 J.E.S. J.E.S. would further allegations went to allegations the of CR-10-0831 J.S. testified t h a t she was i n 2006. with s h e i s S.H.'s m o t h e r . m a r r i e d t o D.W.H. f o r 18 y e a r s and J.S. J.S. stated they divorced s t a t e d t h a t t h e r e were a l l e g a t i o n s t h a t D.W.H. s e x u a l l y a b u s e d S.H. do that b u t t h a t t h o s e a l l e g a t i o n s had n o t h i n g her divorce. n i g h t m a r e s and J.S. testified that wakes up i n t h e m i d d l e o f t h e t h a t somebody i s c h a s i n g her and she to S.H. "has b a d night s e e s bad hollering things." D e t e c t i v e P a r k e r C r o s b y t e s t i f i e d t h a t he i s e m p l o y e d b y the M i l l b r o o k P o l i c e Department. Detective Crosby s t a t e d that he became i n v o l v e d i n t h i s c a s e when S.H.'s m o t h e r came t o police him. and department and f i l e d Detective S.H.'s mother Detective Crosby testified that interview. he was n o t rather, i n the t o take that allegations Crosby with room w i t h testified he was p r e s e n t S.H. a n d t h e observing that he d i d Protect. during the typically, stated interviewer; the interview. not discuss the officers the v i c t i m s o f s e x u a l 7 Protect Crosby, however, room S.H. a n d t h a t , t a l k t o c h i l d r e n who a r e S.H. t o C h i l d Detective he was i n a n o t h e r Detective w h i c h was a s s i g n e d t o C r o s b y s e t up an i n t e r v i e w a t C h i l d told Child Protect a report, the abuse. do n o t CR-10-0831 After the State rested i t s case-in-chief, for a judgment o f a c q u i t t a l , which t h e c i r c u i t and then presented D.W.H. moved court t h e f o l l o w i n g d e f e n s e : M.L.S. t h a t she i s D.W.H.'s s i s t e r testified a n d t h a t , a l t h o u g h S.H. t h a t D.W.H. r a p e d one o f h e r s i s t e r s , denied, testified D.W.H. h a d n e v e r raped her. C. L.P. D.W.H. testified had n o t raped inappropriate D. O.H. stated that that and that D.W.H.'s s o n . testified inappropriate did testified t o have D.O.H. a normal t o have a n y that he i s S.H.'s brother and D.W.H., J r . , s t a t e d t h a t S.H. d i d n o t a p p e a r t o t o be a r o u n d h e r f a t h e r . t h a t he n e v e r o b s e r v e d D.W.H. d o i n g t o S.H. not t e l l inappropriate S.H.'s appeared she d i d n o t appear have a n y f e a r o r r e l u c t a n c e S.H. "sexually t o be a r o u n d h e r f a t h e r . D.W.H., J r . , Jr., anything he i s D.W.H.'s b r o t h e r . S.H. a n d D.W.H. relationship reluctance h e r o r done and that t o [her]." testified that s h e i s D.W.H.'s s i s t e r him that t o her." reputation D.W.H., J r . , f u r t h e r at D.W.H. (R. 260.) school 8 D.W.H., anything testified d i danything "bad D.W.H., J r . , s t a t e d was "not very that that good f o r or CR-10-0831 truthfulness." (R. 263.) D.W.H., J r . , t e s t i f i e d t h a t he w o u l d n o t b e l i e v e S.H. " i f she r a i s e d h e r h a n d a n d p u t a h a n d on t h e Bible." (R. 264.) K.C. t e s t i f i e d t h a t s h e i s S.H.'s c o u s i n . K.C. t e s t i f i e d t h a t i t a p p e a r e d t h a t S.H. a n d D.W.H. h a d a n o r m a l father-and- d a u g h t e r r e l a t i o n s h i p . K.C. t e s t i f i e d t h a t s h e n e v e r saw S.H. e x p r e s s any f e a r she t o w a r d D.W.H. that, b y b o t h S.H. a n d h e r f a t h e r . K.C. t e s t i f i e d t o t h e b e s t o f h e r k n o w l e d g e , S.H.'s v i s i t a t i o n s D.W.H. went w e l l around D.W.H. reputation student." a n d S.H. d e m o n s t r a t e d no r e l u c t a n c e K.C. s t a t e d f o r being a S.J. testified testified reluctance that S.H. d i d n o t have "truthful and honest t o be a good person or that that oath. s h e was one o f S.H.'s b e s t f r i e n d s . she never saw S.H. e x h i b i t a n y f e a r o r t o be a r o u n d D.W.H. D.W.H. h u g b u t n o t h i n g S.J. said that t y p e w i t h S.H. s h e saw S.H. more. D.W.H. t e s t i f i e d t h a t he h a d n o t h a d s e x u a l any with (R. 272.) K.C. t e s t i f i e d t h a t s h e w o u l d n o t b e l i e v e s t a t e m e n t s S.H. made u n d e r and that o b s e r v e d a f f e c t i o n a t e hugs b e t w e e n S.H. a n d D.W.H. t h a t were i n i t i a t e d S.J. K.C. f u r t h e r t e s t i f i e d relationso f D.W.H. t e s t i f i e d t h a t h i s v i s i t a t i o n 9 with CR-10-0831 S.H. s t o p p e d i n 2008 a n d t h a t he had the v i s i t a t i o n S.H. resumed. t o resume may D.W.H. s t a t e d t h a t b e f o r e visitation a l l e g a t i o n s o f sexual t o h i r e a l a w y e r t o have with abuse. h i m S.H. h a d made t h i n k o f i s she "[t]he s t e p d a d c o u l d p r o v i d e way (R. 296.) A f t e r D.W.H. p r e s e n t e d h i s e v i d e n c e , t h e the State following S.H.'s rebuttal testimony: J.S., presented mother, t e s t i f i e d t h a t one o f D.W.H.'s s i s t e r s - - M . L . S . - - t o l d h e r D.W.H. h a d r a p e d h e r After theState only d i d n ' t l i k e t h e way I was l i v i n g . I w a s n ' t m a k i n g much money a n d h e r b e t t e r than I can." no When a s k e d why he t h o u g h t S.H. have made t h e a l l e g a t i o n s , D.W.H. r e p l i e d , t h i n g I can he f o r c e d when she that was 14 o r 15 y e a r s o l d . rested, D.W.H. moved f o r a j u d g m e n t o f a c q u i t t a l , which the c i r c u i t c o u r t denied, and then both the State a n d D.W.H. p r e s e n t e d c l o s i n g a r g u m e n t s . The c i r c u i t court then charged the j u r y . a verdict of guilty motion The j u r y r e t u r n e d on f o u r c o u n t s o f f i r s t - d e g r e e sodomy. for a new t r i a l , which was d e n i e d . D.W.H. f i l e d a This appeal followed. On appeal, D.W.H. r a i s e s D.W.H.'s a r g u m e n t t h a t two i s s u e s . his four convictions 10 We f i r s t address offirst-degree CR-10-0831 sodomy were c o n t r a r y t o t h e g r e a t w e i g h t trial. This issue i s without merit. testified A s d e t a i l e d a b o v e , S.H. t o f o u r s p e c i f i c i n c i d e n t s o f D.W.H.'s e n g a g i n g d e v i a t e s e x u a l i n t e r c o u r s e w i t h S.H. s u f f i c i e n t t o e s t a b l i s h a prima first-degree e v i d e n c e was So. o f the evidence a t sodomy; T h a t t e s t i m o n y a l o n e was f a c i e case o f f o u r counts o f therefore, any i n c o n s i s t e n c y i n f o r the j u r y to r e s o l v e . 2 d 249, 255 ( A l a . C r i m . e i t h e r rape A p p . 1996) 2d 867, o r sexual abuse"); 871 ( A l a . C r i m . App. witnesses and the weight 2001) the See J o n e s v. S t a t e , 719 ("[T]he v i c t i m ' s testimony alone i s s u f f i c i e n t to e s t a b l i s h a prima of in facie case C h e s t a n g v. S t a t e , 837 So. ("'"'[T]he c r e d i b i l i t y o f o r probative force of testimony f o r t h e [ t r i e r o f f a c t ] t o j u d g e and d e t e r m i n e . ' " ' " is (Citations omitted.)). D.W.H. a l s o argues that the circuit court "erred i n denying h i s request to present r e b u t t a l witnesses i n to the testimony o f the S t a t e ' s ' e x p e r t w i t n e s s . ' " brief, p . 10.) Specifically, D.W.H. c o n t e n d s 1 1 The w o u l d have w i t n e s s i s not i d e n t i f i e d i n the r e c o r d . 11 (D.W.H.'s t h a t he was denied h i s c o n s t i t u t i o n a l r i g h t to present a defense was p r e c l u d e d f r o m c a l l i n g a w i t n e s s who response when he testified CR-10-0831 that thewitness before had had a sexual r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h S.H. t h e s e x u a l - a b u s e e x a m i n a t i o n b y Dr. W h i t e . b r i e f , pp. 20-21.) of t h e w i t n e s s ' s (D.W.H.'s D.W.H. f u r t h e r c o n t e n d s t h a t t h e p u r p o s e testimony was t o r e b u t t h e i n f e r e n c e created by Dr. White's t e s t i m o n y t h a t S.H.'s h y m e n a l t e a r was c a u s e d by D.W.H. when he a l l e g e d l y e n g a g e d i n a n a l i n t e r c o u r s e with S.H. The not S t a t e contends, however, t h a t t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t abuse i t s d i s c r e t i o n when i t d i d n o t a l l o w t h e because t h e testimony admission was n o t r e l e v a n t o f the testimony Alabama's r a p e - s h i e l d r u l e . " 412, "did testimony n o r m a t e r i a l and w o u l d have b e e n i n violation of ( S t a t e ' s b r i e f , p. 14.) See R u l e A l a . R. E v i d . The A l a b a m a Supreme C o u r t has h e l d t h a t " [ a ] t r i a l has b r o a d d i s c r e t i o n i n d e t e r m i n i n g and whether prejudicial that effect evidence the relevancy i s inadmissible s u b s t a n t i a l l y outweighs court of evidence because i t s i t s probative v a l u e , a n d i t s r u l i n g on t h e s e i s s u e s w i l l n o t be d i s t u r b e d on a p p e a l a b s e n t a c l e a r s h o w i n g o f abuse o f t h a t d i s c r e t i o n . " E x p a r t e D e n n i s , 730 So. 2 d 138, 143 ( A l a . 1999) . A d d i t i o n a l l y , "when Rule 412 i s a p p l i e d t o preclude 12 the admission o f CR-10-0831 p a r t i c u l a r e x c u l p a t o r y evidence, the c o n s t i t u t i o n a l i t y of i t s a p p l i c a t i o n i s t o be d e t e r m i n e d on a c a s e - b y - c a s e basis." Id. a t 141. A l a b a m a ' s r a p e - s h i e l d p r i n c i p l e i s s e t f o r t h i n R u l e 412, A l a . R. E v i d . , w h i c h states, i n pertinent part: "(b) I n any p r o s e c u t i o n f o r c r i m i n a l s e x u a l conduct o r f o r a s s a u l t w i t h i n t e n t t o commit, a t t e m p t t o commit, o r c o n s p i r a c y t o commit c r i m i n a l s e x u a l conduct, evidence r e l a t i n g t o the past s e x u a l b e h a v i o r o f t h e c o m p l a i n i n g w i t n e s s ... s h a l l n o t be a d m i s s i b l e , e i t h e r as d i r e c t e v i d e n c e o r on c r o s s examination of the complaining witness or of other w i t n e s s e s , e x c e p t as o t h e r w i s e p r o v i d e d i n t h i s Rule. " ( c ) I n any p r o s e c u t i o n f o r c r i m i n a l s e x u a l conduct, evidence relating to the past sexual behavior of the complaining witness shall be i n t r o d u c e d i f the court, f o l l o w i n g the procedure d e s c r i b e d i n s e c t i o n (d) o f t h i s R u l e , f i n d s t h a t such p a s t s e x u a l b e h a v i o r d i r e c t l y i n v o l v e d the p a r t i c i p a t i o n of the accused." Thus, "Alabama R u l e absolutely a l l evidence of Evidence of the 412 appears complaining to exclude witness' past s e x u a l b e h a v i o r w i t h t h e e x c e p t i o n o f when i t i s shown t o have i n v o l v e d the p a r t i c i p a t i o n of the accused." & Robert ed. J . Goodwin, M c E l r o y ' s 2009). stated that In Dennis, "to read Alabama E v i d e n c e however, Rule 412 13 C h a r l e s W. t h e Alabama as requiring Gamble § 32.01 ( 6 t h Supreme an Court absolute CR-10-0831 e x c l u s i o n o f a l l e v i d e n c e o f p a s t s e x u a l a c t i v i t y between victim and criminal third persons defendant's could, in some cases, constitutional rights." 730 the violate So. a 2d at 141. As a result, t h e A l a b a m a Supreme C o u r t n o t e d t h a t s t a t e s and t h e f e d e r a l c o u r t s ... have made e x p r e s s "other exceptions p e r m i t t i n g the i n t r o d u c t i o n of evidence of the v i c t i m ' s history where scientific i t is offered with "exception rebut those So. courts, stating i s not o n l y w i s e , but a p h y s i c a l i n j u r y or and record argued the The the in Supreme C o u r t above-noted o f f e r s e v i d e n c e t o show of the victim indicates of rape." Id. at e s t a b l i s h e s that, at t r i a l , 142. D.W.H. p r o f f e r e d of the presence of the jury: " J u d g e , we w o u l d p r o f f e r ... t h a t we i n t e n d t o p u t on a w i t n e s s who w o u l d t e s t i f y t h a t he has had s e x u a l r e l a t i o n s h i p s w i t h [ S . H . ] p r i o r to the August 18, I t h i n k i t was, 2009 e x a m i n a t i o n by Dr. P e n n y W h i t e . He w i l l t e s t i f y t h a t t h e s e x u a l r e l a t i o n s h i p was v a g i n a l and t h u s we w o u l d s a y t h a t u n d e r ... [Ex p a r t e ] D e n n i s [ , 730 So. 2d 138 ( A l a . 1 9 9 9 ) , ] t h a t i t w o u l d be a d m i s s i b l e t o show an e x p l a n a t i o n f o r Dr. 14 away i s c o n s t i t u t i o n a l l y required condition f o l l o w i n g , out explain the p r o s e c u t i o n that t h a t the defendant committed the o f f e n s e The to 2d a t 141-42. i n some c a s e s i n w h i c h t h e p r o s e c u t i o n that or o r m e d i c a l e v i d e n c e o f f e r e d by a r a p e c a s e . " D e n n i s , 730 agreed to sexual CR-10-0831 White's testimony that there was, and I don't remember h e r e x a c t l a n g u a g e , a t e a r i n g , a c u t t i n g , a breaking o f t h e hymen. I mean t h a t was the e s s e n c e o f h e r t e s t i m o n y , t h a t t h e r e was damage t o t h e hymen. II "And t h i s w i t n e s s ' s t e s t i m o n y w o u l d go t o g i v e an alternative explanation or an alternative i n f e r e n c e o t h e r t h a n t h e one t h a t t h e S t a t e has proferred. And, o f c o u r s e , t h e one t h a t t h e S t a t e p r o f f e r e d was i f t h e r e was t e a r i n g - - t h e S t a t e has a t l e a s t i m p l i e d or wants the j u r y t o i n f e r t h a t i f t h e r e was t e a r i n g t o t h e hymen o r b r e a k i n g o f t h e hymen, i t must have b e e n done by t h e d e f e n d a n t . And u n d e r t h e D e n n i s c a s e I t h i n k i t s a y s t h a t ... t h e d e f e n d a n t has a c o n s t i t u t i o n a l r i g h t t o p u t f o r t h a l t e r n a t i v e e x p l a n a t i o n s f o r t h a t and t h a t ' s what we w o u l d be a t t e m p t i n g t o do, J u d g e . " (R. 306-08.) The State objected, arguing: " [ W ] e ' r e n o t h e r e on who b r o k e o r why t h e hymen was t o r [ n ] , t h a t ' s n o t e v e n an i s s u e h e r e . We're h e r e on w h e t h e r [D.W.H.] c o m m i t t e d f o u r c o u n t s o f sodomy, which i s deviate sexual intercourse. And the t e s t i m o n y f r o m Dr. W h i t e was n o t as t o t h e d e f e n d a n t must have done i t and we're t r y i n g t o i n f e r t h a t t o the j u r y . I t was h e r p h y s i c a l e x a m i n a t i o n o f t h e a n a l p e n e t r a t i o n and she d i d a c o m p l e t e p h y s i c a l e x a m i n a t i o n and t h e r e f o r e t o l d h e r r e s u l t s . "Furthermore, according t o R u l e 412 of the Alabama R u l e s of E v i d e n c e , e v i d e n c e r e l a t i n g t o p a s t s e x u a l b e h a v i o r o f a v i c t i m c a n n o t come i n u n l e s s i t ' s past sexual behavior o f t h e v i c t i m and the accused. And i f i t ' s b e t w e e n t h e v i c t i m and the accused, there i s a p r o c e d u r e t h a t has to be followed." 15 CR-10-0831 (R. 308-09.) concluded because sexual that The c i r c u i t court the p r o f f e r e d D.W.H. was charged agreed testimony with i n t e r c o u r s e , and n o t rape. with the State was sodomy, w h i c h The c i r c u i t and inadmissible i s deviate court ruled, t h e r e f o r e , t h a t t h i s d i s t i n c t i o n would " d i s a l l o w t h a t evidence b a s e d on R u l e 4 1 2 . " (R. 311-12.) The A l a b a m a Supreme C o u r t h a s h e l d : "When one p a r t y opens t h e d o o r t o o t h e r w i s e inadmissible evidence, the doctrine of 'curative a d m i s s i b i l i t y ' provides the opposing party with 'the r i g h t t o rebut such evidence w i t h other illegal e v i d e n c e . ' M c E l r o y ' s A l a b a m a E v i d e n c e , § 14.01, p. 49 ( 5 t h e d . 1996) . 'The l a w [ i s ] t h a t e v e n t h o u g h a p a r t y i n t r o d u c e s e v i d e n c e t h a t may be i m m a t e r i a l or i l l e g a l , h i s opponent has t h e r i g h t t o r e b u t such e v i d e n c e a n d t h i s r i g h t i s u n c o n d i t i o n a l . ' C l a r k v. S t a t e , 54 A l a . App. 183, 186, 306 So. 2d 5 1 , 54 (1974). '"A p a r t y who h a s b r o u g h t o u t e v i d e n c e on a c e r t a i n s u b j e c t h a s no v a l i d c o m p l a i n t as t o t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s a c t i o n i n a l l o w i n g h i s opponent o r adversary to introduce evidence on t h e same s u b j e c t . " ' H u b b a r d v. S t a t e , 471 So. 2d 497, 499 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1984) ( q u o t i n g Brown v. S t a t e , 392 So. 2d 1248, 1260 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1 9 8 0 ) , c e r t . d e n i e d , 392 So. 2d 1266 ( A l a . 1 9 8 1 ) ) . " Ex p a r t e D.L.H., 806 So. 2d 1190, 1193 ( A l a . 2 0 0 1 ) . I n D.L.H., t h e v i c t i m , "B.N.G., who was 14 y e a r s o l d a t t h e t i m e o f t r i a l , t e s t i f i e d t h a t D.L.H. h a d a c c o m p l i s h e d e a c h r a p e b y ' [ s ] t i c k i n g h i s p e n i s up my v a g i n a . ' (R. 74.) She t e s t i f i e d f u r t h e r t h a t , a f t e r he d i d s o , ' [ w ] h i t e s t u f f ... came o f f h i s p e n i s . ' (R. 77.) 16 CR-10-0831 Thereafter, question: the prosecutor asked the f o l l o w i n g " ' [ P r o s e c u t o r ] : Have y o u e v e r h a d any k i n d o f s e x u a l r e l a t i o n s w i t h anybody o t h e r t h a n [D.L.H.]? " ' [ B . N . G . ] : No.' "(R. 85.) D e f e n s e c o u n s e l t h e n s o u g h t t o i n t r o d u c e e v i d e n c e i n t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s c a s e - i n - c h i e f t o impeach B.N.G.'s t e s t i m o n y . Upon l e a r n i n g o f d e f e n s e counsel's i n t e n t i o n t o i n t r o d u c e such evidence, t h e p r o s e c u t o r moved i n l i m i n e t o p r e v e n t t h e a d m i s s i o n o f such evidence. The f o l l o w i n g d i s c u s s i o n o c c u r r e d outside the presence o f the j u r y before the d e f e n d a n t began h i s c a s e - i n - c h i e f : " ' [ P r o s e c u t o r ] : J u d g e , we have l e a r n e d through a p r o f f e r t h a t [defense counsel] has made t o us t h a t he p l a n s t o p o s s i b l y o f f e r evidence about other s e x u a l c o n t a c t o r s e x u a l r e l a t i o n s t h a t may have b e e n h a d by one o f t h e v i c t i m s , [B.N.G.], i n t h i s case. A n d we move, i n l i m i n e , t o - - a n d o b j e c t t o t h a t evidence b e i n g o f f e r e d under t h e Rape S h i e l d Law. " ' [ D e f e n s e c o u n s e l ] : Y o u r Honor, I u n d e r s t a n d t h e Rape S h i e l d Law p r o t e c t i o n , b u t , i t ' s t h e P r o s e c u t i o n t h a t opened t h e d o o r when [B.N.G.] made--gave testimony t h a t h e r o n l y s e x was w i t h h e r f a t h e r . "'[ ] "'[Defense counsel]: I have two witnesses that w i l l t e s t i f y as t o t h e p r e s e n c e o f t h e young l a d y w i t h o t h e r m a l e s s n e a k i n g i n t o windows, b e i n g p r e s e n t w i t h her a t d i f f e r e n t hours and d i f f e r e n t times through the course o f a long p e r i o d o f 17 CR-10-0831 time. These a r e p e o p l e who know them, who know h e r a n d have l i v e d w i t h h e r . ' "(R. 136-42.) Ruling that the admission o f the t e s t i m o n y was p r o h i b i t e d b y t h e r a p e - s h i e l d l a w , R u l e 412, A l a . R. E v i d . , t h e t r i a l c o u r t g r a n t e d t h e State's motion i n limine and p r o h i b i t e d t h e defendant from presenting the p r o f f e r e d testimony. (R. D.L.H., 143.)" 806 So. 2d a t 1192. The A l a b a m a Supreme Court concluded that " t h e p r o s e c u t o r ' s o p e n i n g t h e d o o r t o B.N.G.'s p r i o r s e x u a l h i s t o r y e n t i t l e d D.L.H. t o r e b u t a n d t o i m p e a c h on t h e same p o i n t , i f D.L.H., i n f a c t , h a d r e b u t t i n g e v i d e n c e on t h e same p o i n t . D.L.H.'s p r o f f e r , h o w e v e r , d i d n o t show t h a t he d i d have r e b u t t i n g e v i d e n c e on t h e same p o i n t . His proffer d i d n o t show t h a t he h a d e v i d e n c e t h a t B.N.G. h a d experienced sexual intercourse with anyone b u t D.L.H. 806 himself." So. 2d a t 1194. I n t h i s c a s e , l i k e D.L.H., t h e S t a t e that S.H. h a d no p r i o r sexual history. introduced evidence Specifically, S t a t e ' s E x h i b i t 5--Dr. W h i t e ' s l e t t e r t o D e t e c t i v e in Crosby--Dr. W h i t e s t a t e d t h a t " [ t ] h e r e i s no h i s t o r y o f c o n s e n s u a l s e x a n d no history of genital area injuries." (C. 121.) That e v i d e n c e - - a l o n g w i t h D r . W h i t e ' s t e s t i m o n y t h a t S.H.'s hymen was torn and t h a t vaginal trauma i s present p e r c e n t o f c a s e s i n v o l v i n g g i r l s who a l l e g e a n a l 18 i n about 30 penetration-- CR-10-0831 created an i n f e r e n c e that t h e hymenal D.W.H. when he a l l e g e d l y c o m m i t t e d abuse t h a t S.H. t e s t i f i e d D.W.H. p r o f f e r e d had a sexual to. As d i s c u s s e d history; this that with unlike above, however, testimony also t h a t he S.H., i n c l u d i n g vaginal S t a t e ' s E x h i b i t 5--the S.H. h a d no p r i o r alternative explanation Thus, o f sexual a w i t n e s s who w o u l d have t e s t i f i e d relationship stating was c a u s e d b y the incidents i n t e r c o u r s e , w h i c h w o u l d have r e b u t t e d letter tear would consensual have sexual provided an as t o t h e cause o f t h e hymenal t e a r . the proffered evidence i n D.L.H., D.W.H.'s p r o f f e r was s u f f i c i e n t t o e s t a b l i s h t h a t S.H. h a d e x p e r i e n c e d sexual intercourse with The evidence testimony regarding someone o t h e r i n State's t h a n D.W.H. Exhibit 5 and Dr. White's t h e c a u s e o f S.H.'s h y m e n a l t e a r therefore opened t h e door t o o t h e r w i s e i n a d m i s s i b l e e v i d e n c e under R u l e 412, A l a . R. E v i d . , a n d t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t i m p r o p e r l y t h e p r o f f e r e d e v i d e n c e . See D.L.H., Furthermore, the c i r c u i t excluded supra. court's exclusion of the p r o f f e r e d e v i d e n c e was n o t h a r m l e s s u n d e r t h e f a c t s i n t h i s case. The h a r m l e s s - e r r o r rule provides, i n pertinent part: "No j u d g m e n t may be r e v e r s e d o r s e t a s i d e ... on t h e g r o u n d o f ... i m p r o p e r a d m i s s i o n o r r e j e c t i o n o f 19 CR-10-0831 e v i d e n c e , ... u n l e s s i n t h e o p i n i o n o f t h e c o u r t t o w h i c h t h e a p p e a l i s t a k e n o r a p p l i c a t i o n i s made, a f t e r an e x a m i n a t i o n o f t h e e n t i r e c a u s e , i t s h o u l d appear t h a t t h e e r r o r complained o f has p r o b a b l y injuriously affected substantial rights of the parties." R u l e 45, A l a . R. App. P. The A l a b a m a Supreme C o u r t h a s h e l d t h a t b e f o r e a c o n s t i t u t i o n a l e r r o r c a n be h e l d h a r m l e s s , " ' t h e c o u r t must be a b l e to declare beyond a reasonable 287 ( A l a . 2004) a belief d o u b t . ' " Ex p a r t e B a k e r , (citations omitted). S.H.'s t e s t i m o n y indicated that intercourse S.H. with t h a t i t was h a r m l e s s on f o u r 906 So. 2d 277, As d i s c u s s e d above, D.W.H. h a d h a d a n a l sexual occasions. The S t a t e also i n t r o d u c e d E x h i b i t 5, w h i c h i n d i c a t e d t h a t S.H. " h a d no p r i o r consensual sexual corroborated history." S.H.'s testimony Dr. and White's indicated testimony that S.H.'s h y m e n a l t e a r c o u l d have r e s u l t e d f r o m a n a l p e n e t r a t i o n . S.H.'s t e s t i m o n y and Dr. W h i t e ' s c o n c l u s i o n , however, have b e e n i m p e a c h e d a n d e x p l a i n e d b y t h e p r o f f e r e d the circuit cause" establishes testimony rights court excluded. that "has p r o b a b l y o f [D.W.H.]." R u l e Examination the exclusion injuriously of t h i s of the affected 45, A l a . R. App. P. 20 Both could testimony "entire witness's substantial Further, i n CR-10-0831 this c a s e we cannot "declare a belief t h a t [ t h e e r r o r ] was harmless beyond a r e a s o n a b l e doubt." Baker, For court supra. the f o r e g o i n g r e a s o n s , t h e judgment o f t h e c i r c u i t i s r e v e r s e d , and t h i s case proceedings consistent with t h i s i s remanded f o r further opinion. REVERSED AND REMANDED. Windom, P . J . , a n d W e l c h , K e l l u m , a n d B u r k e , J J . , c o n c u r . 21

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.