Boggs v. Collins

United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2000 · Evidence

226 F.3d 728 (6th Cir. 2000)

Updated August 22, 2026

EvidenceConfrontation ClauseRight to present a defenseCross-examinationPrior false accusationsSixth AmendmentFourteenth Amendmenthabeas corpus

Facts

At Boggs's rape trial, the complainant testified that Boggs assaulted and repeatedly raped her, and medical evidence showed fresh rectal and anal lacerations, bruising, and other injuries consistent with a violent attack. Boggs sought to cross-examine her about an alleged false rape accusation she had made against another man about a month earlier and also sought to present testimony from two witnesses about that accusation. The trial court barred that questioning, while still permitting extensive cross-examination about the complainant's history of mental illness, psychotic episodes, and substance abuse. Boggs later pursued federal habeas relief, arguing that exclusion of the prior-accusation evidence violated the Confrontation Clause and his right to present a defense.

Issue

Did the Constitution require the state trial court to allow Boggs to cross-examine the complainant about an alleged prior false rape accusation, where Boggs offered the evidence to attack her credibility? Did excluding that evidence also deny him the constitutional right to present a full defense?

Rule

Under the Sixth Amendment, a defendant has a constitutional right to cross-examine a witness to expose bias, motive, or prejudice, but not to conduct a general attack on credibility through specific past acts. Exclusion of defense evidence violates the constitutional right to present a defense only if the exclusion is arbitrary or disproportionate to its purpose and infringes a weighty interest of the accused.

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In a sexual assault trial in Toledo, complainant Nina Flores identifies Devin Mercer as the attacker. Defense counsel seeks to ask Nina whether, two years earlier in Dayton, she falsely accused a different neighbor of assault, explaining to the judge that the jury should know she is "the kind of person who makes these claims when upset."

If the judge bars that line of questioning, which is the best constitutional analysis?

Explanation. The governing distinction is between constitutionally protected cross-examination to expose bias, motive, or prejudice and nonconstitutional impeachment aimed only at general credibility through specific prior conduct. Here, defense counsel expressly offers the prior accusation to show Nina is the sort of person who lies, which is a general character-based credibility attack. Under the majority opinion, the Confrontation Clause does not require admission on that basis alone.