Can domestic violence victims mention prior abuse at trial?

Status
Not open for further replies.
N

Nellapea

New Member
Jurisdiction
Illinois
I thought DV victims were allowed to mention prior abuse at trial, but I've been told by the ASA that I may not to be able to bring up my ex's "prior bad acts" or it may cause a mistrial. I believe this is because the defense has requested to suppress the mention of bad acts and some other legal stuff that I'm trying to understand. There is a scheduled hearing for a motion to limine, which the ASA is fighting.

But, I don't understand how it is possible for me to tell what happened or show who my ex really is without mentioning the dynamics of our relationship and his prior abusive behavior. For example he tried to attack me just 2 weeks prior to the charged assault, but I escaped. He then threatened to come to my house to hurt me. If I can't mention stuff like this, I believe my ex will go free because on the outside he comes across as this passive, non-aggressive, non-violent model citizen and is trying to make the assault look like an isolated incident where he was provoked. However, behind closed doors he's different and and his violent criminal history says different, which I hope can be mentioned to show that he's more likely than not to have attacked me without provocation.

In addition to prior non-reported abuse against me, he was arrested for assaulting a police officer 4yrs ago, but was acquitted on a technicality. He was charged with domestic battery against a girlfriend abut 20yrs ago, but never went to trial because she wouldn't cooperate. About 30 years ago he was convicted and served time for manslaughter after fatally hitting a friend with an object during an argument, then claimed self defense. He later told me that lost his cool during that incident and admitted having a bad temper and being diagnosed with having anger management problems by the therapist in that case. He also hit me with the same type of object and is now again claiming self-defense, but we may not be able to mention this. But there's a chance that no of this will be heard in this trial if it's up to the defense, so all I have is his past abusive behavior against me.

I understand the need to avoid prejudice against the defendant for past offenses, but I don't get suppressing evidence of more recent abusive/violent behaviors or behaviors that are similar in nature to a prior incident
 
Talk to the prosecutor about your concerns.
If the prosecutor says not to mention the prior acts in order to avoid a mistrial, then don't mention the prior acts.

EDIT: If the court decides that prior incidents are inadmissible, then mentioning them can be seen as prejudicial and cause a mistrial.
 
Thank you for your response. Naturally, I'm not going to do anything other than what the State says is permitted, but I thought by law domestic violence victims have a right to mention past abuse. So, is this one of those things that can change according to the circumstances of each case?
 
New post from Nellapea:

My ex has requested a jury trial on a domestic battery charge. He called 911 on himself. When he assaulted me, he would not allow me to leave because he said I was going to call the police when I left and said he wanted to hear what I tell them. I said that I wouldn't call and begged him to let me leave, but he wouldn't. After a few minutes of this, he said he was calling 911 himself, which he actually did and admitted choking me and throwing me to the floor, but didn't admit threatening me with a knife. He admitted the same thing to responding officers, still excluding the knife. What he didn't expect was for me to corroborate what he said and also tell police about the knife, which resulted in his arrest. After he was charged and learned that I was cooperating with the State, his story changed to self defense. Now he says I attacked him and he was defending himself and I think he's banking on the jury believing he was the victim since he called 911, which concerns me.

Further, even though he's changed his story several times to law enforcement on camera, which will shows that he's a liar, the State has chosen not to admit that camera footage into evidence because they said the officers would have to be present and it's hard to get police to show up to court. I feel it is very unfair to me as the victim, to not admit available evidence that may help prosecute the case.

Your other post has been removed.
 
In general in criminal trials it is not permitted for a party to attempt to introduce evidence of acts other than the incident for which the defendant is specifically being tried. The reason for that is that it can cause prejudice by the jury assuming that if he did those things before then he must be guilty this time too. He's supposed to be convicted only for the alleged crime at issue, not for everything else he's ever done or because he's simply a "bad person". There are some exceptions, but nothing in your post jumps out at me as being one of them. The prosecutor will know the rules and will ask questions designed to get the necessary answers and not violate those rules. Thus, when you are testifying, only answer the exact question asked and don't stray into mentioning other things that are not directly responsive to the question asked. That can be sometimes hard to do when you are bursting to tell about all the abuse you've ever suffered. But if you mention prior acts that are not admissible, the judge will almost certainly declare a mistrial, and that in turn will mean that he cannot be tried again for this. As suggested before, try discussing your concerns with the prosecutor before trial to understand what you are supposed to do. In general though, if the prosecutor asks the right questions and you stick to just answering those questions and don't mention things that are outside the question asked you are likely to be ok. It's when witnesses go off on tangents that don't directly answer the question asked that problems are likely to occur.
 
Tax Counsel said:
But if you mention prior acts that are not admissible, the judge will almost certainly declare a mistrial, and that in turn will mean that he cannot be tried again for this.
Click to expand...

I think your statement is too broad. The admissibility of prior acts depends on the purpose for which they are offered and the judge may rule they are admissible.

And whether or not the defendant can be retried is also dependent on more than the utterances of prior act.
 
Tax Counsel said:
In general in criminal trials it is not permitted for a party to attempt to introduce evidence of acts other than the incident for which the defendant is specifically being tried. The reason for that is that it can cause prejudice by the jury assuming that if he did those things before then he must be guilty this time too. He's supposed to be convicted only for the alleged crime at issue, not for everything else he's ever done or because he's simply a "bad person". There are some exceptions, but nothing in your post jumps out at me as being one of them. The prosecutor will know the rules and will ask questions designed to get the necessary answers and not violate those rules. Thus, when you are testifying, only answer the exact question asked and don't stray into mentioning other things that are not directly responsive to the question asked. That can be sometimes hard to do when you are bursting to tell about all the abuse you've ever suffered. But if you mention prior acts that are not admissible, the judge will almost certainly declare a mistrial, and that in turn will mean that he cannot be tried again for this. As suggested before, try discussing your concerns with the prosecutor before trial to understand what you are supposed to do. In general though, if the prosecutor asks the right questions and you stick to just answering those questions and don't mention things that are outside the question asked you are likely to be ok. It's when witnesses go off on tangents that don't directly answer the question asked that problems are likely to occur.
Click to expand...
Thank you for the response. I understand what you, and the law, are saying, but isn't him being painted as this nonviolent person also prejudicial to the jury and gives him up the upper hand in projecting this image that he is a nonviolent person who only attacked me because of this lie that I was attacking him? I've never committed a crime or hit anyone (besides spanking my daughter) in my life, am a social worker and served 24yrs in the military prior to that. My record speaks for itself, so why can't hos record do the same?

At the motion hearing yesterday, the prosecution didn't even bother to object to the defense request that the court prohibit the State from referencing any outstanding warrants or criminal history or the State and any witnesses from presenting or eliciting any and all evidence of the defendants bad acts or details of his arrest. Which, to my understanding means, not only can his other violent criminal acts and DV arrest/charges not for mentioned, but also means that I cannot say anything bad that my ex has done period, whether it's his abuse behaviors (to include the attempted attack and threats 2 wks prior to this assault) or something less serious like his failure to pay bills and refusal to pay the rent, which is what were arguing about when he attacked me. How is that fair? Not only does this silence me as an abuse victim, but it also limits my ability to share information that would speak to the dynamics of our relationship or his true character period. So, he and his character witnesses will be given the freedom to get on the stand and paint him as this wonderful person, which I cannot contradict because I'm not allowed to say anything bad that he's done. And being that the State has not cared to even ask about character witnesses on my behalf, that my ex is a great actor who comes off as the model citizen on the surface and the State (for reasons unknown to me) is choosing not to use evidence that they have that proves him to be a liar (such as 3 police body cam videos of him changing his story each time) that proves he's a liar, it's a great chance that my ex will convince the jury that he attacked me in self defense. It all just seems so unfair.

I'm honestly starting to believe that the State and the Defense have some under the table agreement to get him on the lessor charge of violation of the order of protection, versus the actual domestic battery. Because none of this makes sense to me of the objective is to get a conviction on the battery charge.
 
welkin said:
The admissibility of prior acts depends on the purpose for which they are offered and the judge may rule they are admissible.
Click to expand...

While true, I saw nothing in the OP's post that would suggest statements about prior incidents of abuse would be admissible. I'm not saying they wouldn't be; I don't have all the information to know if the prosecutor can find an exception to allow for it. But a mistrial is a certainly a possibility with that kind of testimony.

welkin said:
IAnd whether or not the defendant can be retried is also dependent on more than the utterances of prior act.
Click to expand...

If the judge declares a mistrial over it then it is indeed over because of the Constitution's protection against double jeopardy. Indeed, I was a juror in a criminal case where that exact thing happened — the cop referred to a prior encounter with the defendant in a separate drug buy operation. That was not permitted under the rules of evidence and the judge believed it significant enough to potentially bias the jury and declared a mistrial. The government was barred from bringing the case to trial again because of double jeopardy.
 
welkin said:
I think your statement is too broad. The admissibility of prior acts depends on the purpose for which they are offered and the judge may rule they are admissible.

And whether or not the defendant can be retried is also dependent on more than the utterances of prior act.
Click to expand...
Thank you for your response. Can you elaborate about the broadness of the other reply? Are you saying that there is the option for a judge to allow prior acts to be admitted if they choose? Or does the law strictly prohibit certain information regardless of what the judge thinks?
 
Nellapea said:
I thought DV victims were allowed to mention prior abuse at trial, but I've been told by the ASA that I may not to be able to bring up my ex's "prior bad acts" or it may cause a mistrial. I believe this is because the defense has requested to suppress the mention of bad acts and some other legal stuff that I'm trying to understand. There is a scheduled hearing for a motion to limine, which the ASA is fighting.
Click to expand...

Illinois attorneys reveal the answer!!!

https://law.lclark.edu/live/files/25189-ncvli-newsletter---when-prior-bad-acts-are
...


When Are Prior Uncharged Bad Acts Admissible in Court? :: Los Angeles County Crime Defense Lawyers Greg Hill & Associates


725 ILCS 5/115-10.2a
...


...
Can My Ex Testify About "Prior Bad Acts" in a Criminal Domestic Violence Trial?
...


Illinois Rule Of Evidence Makes Prosecution Of Domestic Violence Easier - Ivec Law
...


Prior Bad Acts in Domestic Violence Cases | Jeffrey Vallens
...


Prior Bad Acts Or Other Crimes Evidence Has To Be Limited When Admitted
...
 
 
You have received good advice above, but I suggest that you speak with a therapist/counselor as well. You seem to (rightly) have a feeling of powerlessness that can be difficult to get past. Therapy can help.
 
Zigner said:
You have received good advice above, but I suggest that you speak with a therapist/counselor as well. You seem to (rightly) have a feeling of powerlessness that can be difficult to get past. Therapy can help.
Click to expand...

Excellent advice that every human being should heed when life circumstances indicate it.

Fact is, humans rarely hesitate seeking medical assistance for a broken limb, a heart attack, excessive loss of blood, recurrent vomiting, etc...

Our bodies, along with all of it's many bits and pieces are fragile.

So, too, is the human psyche.

If you develop a tooth cavity, foot trouble, etc... you seek medical assistance.

Treat your mind and emotional state the way you do the physical being, seek psychological, psychiatric, or emotional counsel when you aren't the complete you!
 
You might also want to consider hiring with a lawyer who can represent you and your rights. The prosecutor represents the state, not you. Even a consultation (many give free or low cost) might help you better understand how the system works.
 
Zigner said:
You have received good advice above, but I suggest that you speak with a therapist/counselor as well. You seem to (rightly) have a feeling of powerlessness that can be difficult to get past. Therapy can help.
Click to expand...
Thank you so much for the compassion. I have been seeing a therapist since this all began and we've discussed these things, which does help.
 
army judge said:
Excellent advice that every human being should heed when life circumstances indicate it.

Fact is, humans rarely hesitate seeking medical assistance for a broken limb, a heart attack, excessive loss of blood, recurrent vomiting, etc...

Our bodies, along with all of it's many bits and pieces are fragile.

So, too, is the human psyche.

If you develop a tooth cavity, foot trouble, etc... you seek medical assistance.

Treat your mind and emotional state the way you do the physical being, seek psychological, psychiatric, or emotional counsel when you aren't the complete you!
Click to expand...
I agree 100% and have been seeing a therapist.
 
As a domestic violence victim, I have read a lot of how excited utterances by victims can be used in trial as testimony of what happened, particularly in cases where a victim has changed their story. I'm curious if it can also be used if the defendant changes their story. I'm asking because when my boyfriend was arrested, he told the police that he attacked me without provocation. He also called 911 on himself and admitted the same. Then as handcuffs were being placed on him, he asked the police why he was being arrested, since he called on himself. The officer told him he's being arrested because he's admitted to assaulting me. At this time he makes no claim that I did anything to him or was the aggressor in any way to attempt to justify his actions. Matter of fact, as he continues to try to talk himself out of handcuffs, he says that he lost his cool because I was getting on his nerves (this translates to me asking him about not paying a bill on time, which is what we were arguing about). Still, never once does he say that I displayed aggressive behavior or even as much as threatened him. The day after he's charged and released from jail, he files a false police report on me saying the day of the assault I stole some stuff from his house, which he had added as a supplement to the domestic battery incident report filed the day before. This was not true, nor was this alleged theft mentioned to the police when he was arrested as a reason for assaulting me. But I immediately concluded that this was him trying to build was a defense, "I was stealing from him, so he assaulted me." But, after he was charged with domestic battery, he goes another route and all of a sudden he claims that I lunged towards him and that he hit me in self defense. Again, up to this point, even while going out of his way to file the false police report accusing me of theft, he never once even suggested that I showed any aggression towards him to justify the attack. Now suddenly I'm the aggressor. So, I'm just kind of wondering if the things he said during his arrest are also considered excited utterances that an could be used at trial against him as the truth, versus what he's says since.
 
Please stop making new threads about the same matter. Do as the prosecutor directs and/or get your own attorney.

And therapy.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Share this page

Get a free case review from a lawyer
Back
Top