## Facts

- Alan Archibald was charged in the District Court of the Virgin Islands with three counts of aggravated rape for alleged sexual intercourse with ten-year-old Latoya Chinnery, a non-spouse under thirteen, on three occasions beginning in October 1991.
- Latoya lived with her aunt, Marlene Chinnery, who noticed signs of nighttime entry near Latoya’s bedroom window and stains on bedding.
- Latoya told her mother, Ursula Williams, that she had engaged in sexual intercourse with Archibald and later testified that Archibald came at night, signaled by throwing rocks or knocking, entered through a screen door, and then left after intercourse.
- Latoya testified she liked Archibald and knew he was her older sister Tasha’s boyfriend.
- A physician examined Latoya and found a torn hymen consistent with prior penetrations, without identifying a perpetrator.
- Over objection, the trial court admitted testimony indicating Archibald had fathered a child with Tasha, who was fifteen at trial and whose child was six months old, permitting an inference that Archibald had engaged in intercourse with Tasha when she was under the age of consent.
- Over a hearsay objection, the trial court also admitted testimony on redirect that Tasha told Williams she saw Archibald and Latoya “kissing while dancing at a party,” reasoning the defense had “opened the door” on cross-examination.
- The jury convicted Archibald on all three counts.

## Issues

1. Whether admitting evidence implying Archibald previously committed a sexual offense with another minor (Tasha) violated Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b) and, in any event, should have been excluded under Rule 403.
2. Whether the trial court erred by admitting hearsay testimony on redirect that Archibald and Latoya were “kissing while dancing at a party” on the theory that cross-examination “opened the door.”
3. Whether any evidentiary errors were harmless given the proof at trial.

## Decision

- The Third Circuit reversed the convictions and remanded for a new trial.
- The court held the trial court abused its discretion by admitting the evidence concerning Archibald’s prior sexual conduct with Tasha because it functioned as propensity evidence barred by Rule 404(b) and was unfairly prejudicial under Rule 403.
- The court held the trial court erred by admitting the “kissing at a party” statement because it was offered for its truth, no hearsay exception justified it, and cross-examination did not justify admitting otherwise inadmissible hearsay.
- The court held the errors were not harmless because the case largely turned on credibility and the improper evidence supplied powerful, prejudicial corroboration.

## Legal Principles

- Rule 404(b) bars other-acts evidence offered to prove character and action in conformity; the proponent must show relevance to a material, non-propensity purpose.
- In sexual-offense prosecutions, evidence of prior sexual conduct with other minors is not admissible merely because it suggests a sexual interest in minors; it must relate to a genuinely disputed, material issue beyond propensity.
- Even if other-acts evidence has some relevance, Rule 403 requires exclusion when unfair prejudice substantially outweighs probative value; limiting instructions may not cure prejudice where the inference is essentially character-based and inflammatory.
- “Opening the door” on cross-examination does not permit admission of otherwise inadmissible hearsay; redirect must still satisfy hearsay rules and exceptions.
- Evidentiary errors are more likely to be prejudicial when the prosecution’s case depends heavily on witness credibility and lacks strong independent corroboration.

## Conclusion

The Third Circuit ordered a new trial because the jury heard improper propensity evidence suggesting Archibald committed statutory rape of the complainant’s sister and inadmissible hearsay offered as corroboration, and those errors could not be deemed harmless in a credibility-driven case with limited corroborating proof.


Government of the V.I. v. Archibald, 987 F.2d 180 (3d Cir. 1993)