## Facts

- Kenneth Guenther, the complainant’s mother’s “common-law” husband, lived with and acted as the stepfather to D.F.
- An Ocean County grand jury charged Guenther with multiple sexual offenses against D.F. allegedly committed when she was ages ten to fourteen, including aggravated sexual assault and related child-sex offenses.
- On the first day of trial, the State disclosed documents showing that about six months before accusing Guenther, D.F. had made a sexual-abuse allegation against a neighbor that she later recanted and admitted was false.
- The disclosed materials included prosecutor’s office investigation reports and letters from school staff reflecting D.F.’s admission of falsity.
- The defense sought to use the prior false accusation to impeach D.F.’s credibility, asserting the case largely depended on whether the jury believed D.F. or Guenther.
- The trial court excluded the proffered evidence under N.J.R.E. 608 as impermissible extrinsic evidence of a specific instance of conduct offered to show untruthfulness.
- Guenther was convicted; the Appellate Division reversed; the State appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether N.J.R.E. 608 categorically bars impeachment of a sexual-abuse complainant with evidence that the complainant previously made a false criminal accusation.
2. Whether excluding evidence of a prior false accusation, in a case turning on the complainant’s credibility, violates the defendant’s state and federal confrontation rights.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of New Jersey affirmed the Appellate Division’s reversal of the conviction and remanded for a new trial.
- The court held that N.J.R.E. 608 does not impose a categorical bar on admitting evidence of a witness’s prior false criminal accusation for impeachment.
- The court held that, on this record, excluding the evidence deprived Guenther of a meaningful opportunity to impeach the key witness and violated his confrontation rights.
- The court directed that admissibility should be determined through a structured process, including a judicial finding of an adequate factual basis for falsity and a balancing of probative value against countervailing risks.

## Legal Principles

- N.J.R.E. 608 generally forbids using specific instances of conduct to attack a witness’s character for truthfulness, but it does not automatically exclude impeachment evidence that a witness previously made a demonstrably false criminal accusation.
- A prior accusation must be shown to be false, not merely unsubstantiated; reliable proof may include an admission of falsity or credible evidence of recantation.
- Trial courts should conduct a hearing outside the jury’s presence to determine whether the defense has established a sufficient factual basis of falsity and whether admission is appropriate under N.J.R.E. 403-type balancing (prejudice, confusion, harassment, delay).
- The Confrontation Clause protects the accused’s ability to expose facts from which jurors can draw inferences about a witness’s reliability; when credibility is central, exclusion of highly probative impeachment can violate confrontation rights.

## Conclusion

The court ordered a new trial because evidence that the complainant previously made a false sexual-abuse accusation was not categorically barred by N.J.R.E. 608 and, given the credibility-driven nature of the prosecution, excluding the evidence denied the defense constitutionally required confrontation; admission must be screened through a hearing requiring a factual showing of falsity and careful balancing.


State v. Guenther, 854 A.2d 308 (N.J. 2004)