Hinkle v. Neal

Dist. Ct. did not err in denying defendant’s habeas petition that challenged his sexual molestation of minor conviction on ground that Indiana trial court violated his constitutional right to present complete defense by excluding evidence of victim’s drug use. Defendant claimed that said evidence was crucial to his defense where: (1) victim had serious discussion with family members about his drug use; and (2) victim had falsely accused him of sexual molestation during said conversation to avoid facing consequences from his family when they confronted him about his drug use. Indiana courts could properly find that defendant did not present any basis, other than speculation, to support his allegation that victim had invented allegations of sexual harassment. Moreover, victim testified that he was unaware that his family was considering consequences for his drug use at time of family discussion. As such, exclusion of said evidence was appropriate, where defendant failed to show that excluded evidence was reliable and trustworthy. Also, defendant was able to present other evidence that attacked victim’s credibility, but failed to demonstrate existence of connection between victim’s drug use and any motive to falsely accuse defendant of molestation. (Dissent filed.)