Prior false accusations in sex assault cases

Navigating the Nuances of "Prior Untruthful Allegations": A Look at the DiFrances Incest Case

The Wisconsin Court of Appeals in April 2025 issued an opinion in the case of State v. DiFrances, addressing complex issues surrounding the admissibility of a victim's prior statements in a sexual assault trial. This case offers valuable insights into the challenges defendants face in presenting a defense and the stringent standards applied by the courts.

Jonathan T. DiFrances appealed his conviction for incest with his minor daughter, arguing among other things that the trial court erred in excluding certain evidence. Specifically, the evidence DiFrances wanted to get in was that his daughter had also made, and then later withdrew, an accusation that her uncle had sexually molested her. Let's break down the key aspects of this opinion and its implications.

The Excluded "Uncle" Evidence: Prior Untruthful Allegations?

A significant part of DiFrances's appeal focused on the trial court's decision to exclude evidence related to the victim's statements about her uncle. Specifically, the victim had reportedly told others that her uncle had requested a nude picture and that they had "made out" years prior. However, after DiFrances's arrest, the victim allegedly told a relative that the uncle "never did anything to me, leave him out of this."

In DiFrances, the trial court blocked the defense from showing the jury evidence that the accuser had made, and later withdrew, sex assault accusations against another male relative. The withdrawn “uncle” evidence was not sufficiently similar.

DiFrances's attorney argued this evidence constituted a "prior untruthful allegation of sexual assault" and should have been admissible to impeach the victim's credibility under Wisconsin Statute § 972.11(2)(b)3. This statute is also known as the “rape shield” statute.

The Court of Appeals upheld the circuit court's decision to exclude this evidence. They reasoned that the victim's statement denying any wrongdoing by the uncle was "highly ambiguous." It was unclear what specific conduct she was referring to and whether it truly retracted her earlier claims. The context of the denial – occurring immediately after her father's arrest and made to someone unaware of the prior allegations – further heightened this ambiguity.

The court contrasted this situation with a case where a clear recantation of a prior sexual assault allegation justified a new trial. In DiFrances, the alleged denial was too vague and non-specific to definitively establish a prior untruthful allegation of sexual assault.

Furthermore, the court rejected DiFrances's argument that excluding this evidence violated his constitutional right to present a defense. The court applied the Pulizzano test, which requires the defense to demonstrate, among other things, that the prior acts "closely resembled those of the present case" and were "necessary to the defendant's case." The court found that the alleged "making out" and request for lewd photographs did not closely resemble the allegations of repeated sexual intercourse with the father.

Key Takeaway

This part of the opinion emphasizes the high bar for admitting evidence of a victim's prior sexual conduct, even when framed as a prior untruthful allegation. The alleged prior statement must be clear, unambiguous, and directly contradict the current allegations in a significant way. Courts are also wary of introducing collateral matters that could lead to "mini-trials" on unrelated allegations.

Overall Significance

The DiFrances opinion provides a detailed look at the complexities of defending against serious charges. It highlights the importance of thorough investigation by defense counsel while acknowledging the limitations when information is not readily available. More significantly, it underscores the stringent requirements for admitting evidence of a victim's prior sexual conduct, particularly when framed as a prior untruthful allegation. This case serves as a reminder that simply pointing to inconsistencies or prior statements is often insufficient; the evidence must meet specific legal thresholds to be deemed admissible.

Consult with an attorney

As always, hiring a diligent and thorough criminal defense attorney is one of the most important decisions to make if you or a loved one is accused of a sex crime. Not every attorney is good at criminal law. Not every criminal defense attorney is good at sex assault cases. Attorney Tripp Stroud at Valley View Law is experienced with sex assault cases, having secured favorable settlements or dismissal of sex crime charges before trial. Contact us now to set up a free, no-judgment consultation with Attorney Stroud now.