We conclude that the trial court erroneously admitted testimony of uncharged, alleged prior sexual acts against persons other than the complainants of the underlying crimes, the court's 4-3 decision said.
The court's majority said it is an abuse of judicial discretion to permit untested allegations of nothing more than bad behavior that destroys a defendant's character but sheds no light on their credibility as related to the criminal charges lodged against them.
In a stinging dissent, Judge Madeline Singas wrote that the majority was whitewashing the facts to conform to a he-said/she-said narrative, and said the Court of Appeals was continuing a disturbing trend of overturning juries' guilty verdicts in cases involving sexual violence.
[
add
]
[
|
|
...
]