LSD+ is ad-free, with DMs, discounts, case briefs & more.
Chris22, HLS '22 |

0 0

Back to briefs

State v. DeLawder

28 Md. App. 212 (1975)

Tags:ย Criminal law, Rape

tl;dr: The confrontation clause requires that the defendant have the opportunity to cross-examine the witness.

1L is really, really hard. Save time, crush cold calls, and excel on exams with LSD's AI case briefs.

We simplify dense legal cases into easy-to-understand summaries, helping you master legal complexities and excel in your studies.

AI Deep DiveHighlight a legal term to see the definition

Font size -+
Level 1
Click below ๐Ÿ‘‡ to deep dive

Lee Franklin DeLawder was convicted of carnal knowledge of a female under the age of 14 and sentenced to 15 years in prison. He filed a petition attacking the judgment under post-conviction procedures, arguing that his constitutional right to cross-examine witnesses was denied during his trial. The hearing court agreed and vacated the judgment, ordering a new trial. The State appealed, and the issues for decision were whether DeLawder's right of cross-examination was violated under the rule of Davis v. Alaska and, if so, whether Davis has retroactive application. On direct appeal, it was held that the trial court did not err in sustaining objections to questions about the prosecuting witness's prior sexual history with other men. This is because consent is not an issue in a carnal knowledge prosecution, and evidence of prior sexual history or reputation for chastity is immaterial and inadmissible as an excuse or justification. This rule was established in Rau v. State and is supported by legal authorities. The trial judge correctly applied this rule in a case of carnal knowledge. The defendant argues that the trial court violated his constitutional right to confront his accusers by restricting cross-examination, but this issue was not necessarily resolved in the previous appeal. Code, Art. 27, ยง 645A (d) governs collateral attacks. The court must determine if the Davis decision affects the validity of DeLawder's conviction, as it concerns the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment.

The Supreme Court reviewed the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment in Davis, which guarantees the right of an accused in a criminal prosecution to be confronted with the witnesses against them. The Court held that the denial of effective cross-examination would be a constitutional error of the first magnitude. In DeLawder's case, the defense attempted to discredit the prosecuting witness by revealing her possible biases, prejudices, or ulterior motives in alleging that DeLawder raped her. The defense needed to show that she had engaged in prior acts of sexual intercourse to establish their defense, but the State offered a motion in limine to prevent the defense from questioning or making remarks about the prosecutrix's reputation for chastity. The defense attempted to pursue this point on cross-examination of the prosecutrix but was unsuccessful.

In a statutory rape case, the defense was not allowed to fully cross-examine the victim about her conversations with others and her relationship with her mother. The court ruled that such questioning was irrelevant and inadmissible. However, the court's decision to not allow the defense to fully present their argument of bias or ulterior motive was deemed a constitutional error as it denied the defendant's right to effective cross-examination. The court prioritizes the accused's right to seek out the truth in the process of defending themselves over the prosecutrix's duty to testify without embarrassment or harm to their reputation. The Davis decision has retroactive effect. The order of the Circuit Court for Montgomery County from January 1, 1975, is affirmed, and Montgomery County is responsible for paying the costs.

LSD+ is ad-free, with DMs, discounts, case briefs & more.

IRACIssue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion

๐Ÿคฏ High points ๐ŸคฏKey points contributed by students on LSD

LSD+ is ad-free, with DMs, discounts, case briefs & more.

Facts & Holding

Facts:The defendant was convicted of carnal knowledge of a person...

Holding:The court held that rejecting the evidence violated the defendant's...

LSD+ is ad-free, with DMs, discounts, case briefs & more.

State v. DeLawder

Chat for State v. DeLawder
๐Ÿ‘ Chat vibe: 0 ๐Ÿ‘Ž
Help us make LSD better!
Tell us what's important to you
LSD+ is ad-free, with DMs, discounts, case briefs & more.