## Facts

- Frederick Wilbur Morgan III was charged with first-degree sexual assault based on T.F.’s allegation that he had sexual intercourse with her while she was incapacitated or unaware due to intoxication.
- Morgan maintained that T.F. was aware of the intercourse and consented, and that she falsely accused him.
- Morgan offered proof that T.F. had twice previously accused other men of sexual assault and later admitted those accusations were false.
- Morgan sought to present four witnesses (including at least one of the previously accused men) to testify about the prior accusations and recantations.
- The superior court excluded the proposed evidence, concluding Morgan had not sufficiently established the prior accusations were false and treating the matter as collateral; Morgan was convicted.

## Issues

1. What foundational showing must a defendant make to introduce evidence that a sexual-assault complainant previously made a knowingly false accusation of sexual assault?
2. What burden of proof applies to that foundational showing, and who decides it?
3. Did the trial court err by excluding Morgan’s proffered evidence under an incorrect understanding of the governing standard?

## Decision

- The Court of Appeals clarified that a defendant must prove to the trial judge by a preponderance of the evidence: (1) the complainant made a prior sexual-assault accusation, (2) the accusation was factually untrue, and (3) the complainant knew it was untrue.
- The foundational showing must be litigated outside the jury’s presence and may be established through examination of the complainant and/or extrinsic evidence.
- The court vacated Morgan’s conviction and remanded for a foundational hearing applying the clarified standard.
- On remand, if the trial court finds the standard met, Morgan is entitled to a new trial at which the jury may hear the evidence; if not, the conviction may be reinstated.

## Legal Principles

- Evidence that a complainant previously made knowingly false sexual-assault accusations is admissible only after judicial screening establishing falsity and knowing fabrication by a preponderance of the evidence.
- Unprosecuted, uncorroborated, or unresolved prior allegations are insufficient; the defendant must show actual falsity and the complainant’s knowledge of falsity.
- The trial judge decides the foundational admissibility question outside the jury’s presence; only then may the jury hear the evidence.
- When the foundation is met, prior knowingly false accusations are not treated as merely “collateral” impeachment and may be proved through extrinsic evidence despite general limits on extrinsic impeachment.

## Conclusion

The court required a preponderance-based foundational hearing before admitting prior-accusation impeachment in sexual-assault cases, held the trial court applied an incorrect framework in excluding Morgan’s evidence, and vacated and remanded for a proper admissibility determination.


Morgan v. State, 54 P.3d 332 (Alaska Ct. App. 2002)