State of New Jersey v. Kenneth Guenther
854 A.2d 308 (2004)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In criminal cases where a victim-witness's credibility is the central issue, a court may permit the defendant to introduce evidence of a prior false criminal accusation made by that witness to impeach their character for truthfulness, creating a narrow exception to the general prohibition in N.J.R.E. 608.
Facts:
- Kenneth Guenther lived with D.F.'s mother and acted as D.F.'s stepfather.
- In April 1999, D.F. told two classmates that a neighbor named Tony had sexually abused her.
- When confronted by a school counselor and Vice Principal in the presence of her classmates, D.F. initially denied the story but then admitted she had fabricated the accusation against the neighbor.
- D.F. explained she lied because she was angry at the neighbor after hearing 'stories about him' of a 'sexual nature.'
- About six months later, in January 2000, D.F. accused her stepfather, Kenneth Guenther, of sexually abusing her over a period of several years.
- D.F. initially reported the alleged abuse to her brother, P.F., who later informed their mother.
- After P.F. ran away from home, he reported the alleged abuse of his sister to the police, which prompted an official investigation.
- When first interviewed by a Division of Youth and Family Services (DYFS) worker, D.F. denied that Guenther had abused her, but the next day she disclosed the history of abuse to the prosecutor's office.
Procedural Posture:
- Kenneth Guenther was indicted by an Ocean County Grand Jury on seven counts of sexual offenses against his stepdaughter, D.F.
- At trial in the court of first instance, the court denied Guenther's request to cross-examine D.F. about her prior false accusation against a neighbor, ruling the evidence 'irrelevant' and 'extremely collateral.'
- A jury convicted Guenther on five counts, including first-degree aggravated sexual assault.
- Guenther appealed his conviction to the Appellate Division.
- The Appellate Division, as the intermediate appellate court, remanded the case to the trial court for a hearing to determine if D.F. had made a prior false accusation and, if so, whether that evidence was admissible.
- The State, as petitioner, was granted certification to appeal the Appellate Division's decision to the Supreme Court of New Jersey, the state's highest court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does New Jersey Rule of Evidence 608, which generally prohibits using specific instances of conduct to attack a witness's character for truthfulness, bar a defendant in a sexual assault case from introducing evidence that the complaining witness previously made and then admitted to making a false accusation of sexual abuse against another person?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Albin
No, N.J.R.E. 608 does not create an absolute bar. The court creates a narrow exception to the rule, permitting evidence of a prior false accusation in limited circumstances where a victim-witness's credibility is the central issue of a criminal case. The court reasoned that while N.J.R.E. 608's prohibition on specific-act evidence is designed to prevent unfair surprise and 'mini-trials' on collateral issues, the interests of justice and the truth-seeking function of a trial demand flexibility. In a case that is essentially a credibility contest, evidence that the accuser has made a prior false criminal allegation is highly probative of their character for truthfulness. The court explicitly chose to create this exception under its authority to develop state evidence law, rather than on constitutional Confrontation Clause grounds. The court also held that this exception is not limited to sexual crime cases, as doing so would appeal to outdated stereotypes. To manage the admission of such evidence, the court established a new procedural framework requiring a preliminary hearing and a multi-factor balancing test.
Analysis:
This decision significantly modifies New Jersey evidence law by creating a judicial exception to the strict prohibition on specific-act impeachment evidence found in N.J.R.E. 608. It establishes a new, clear procedural framework—an N.J.R.E. 104 hearing and a five-factor test—for trial courts to apply when a defendant seeks to introduce evidence of a victim-witness's prior false accusation. This ruling enhances a defendant's ability to challenge an accuser's credibility in cases that hinge almost entirely on testimonial evidence. By grounding the decision in state evidence law rather than constitutional principles, the court maintained its jurisprudential independence while aligning New Jersey with a majority of other states that have created similar exceptions for this uniquely probative type of impeachment evidence.
