P. v. Bowman CA3
Defendant Terence Bowman’s trial attorney employed an unusual strategy during defendant’s jury trial on the charge of rape. After the prosecution introduced defendant’s statement to the police that he had not had sex with the victim at all, defense counsel moved to introduce a prior inconsistent statement by defendant that sex had been consensual. Defense counsel did not introduce the prior inconsistent statement to prove the truth of the statement, i.e., sex had been consensual, but to undermine the believability of defendant’s other statement that sex had not occurred at all. In other words, defense counsel sought to make defendant’s prior statements so unreliable the jury could not rely on his prior statement to the police even to establish consciousness of guilt. The trial court excluded the prior inconsistent statement offered by the defense, and the jury convicted defendant of forcible rape. (Pen. Code, § 261, subd. (a)(2).) The trial court found defendant had s
Comments on P. v. Bowman CA3