Trial #28 dove back into the world of domestic violence. It involved a set of exes who had parted ways; however, the defendant left his vehicle parked on his ex-girlfriend’s property. Grandpa, who also lived at the property, had the vehicle towed. Upset, the defendant and his current girlfriend showed up at the house and pounded on victim’s window. The defendant then forced entry into the home and took the victim’s phone, telling the victim she could have it back when he got his car back.

The victim told defendant his car had been towed so the defendant threatened to stab the victim and then ultimately drove away with his girlfriend. The house has been rummaged through and door showed signed of forced entry. Later that day the defendant was contacted by law enforcement and the victim’s phone was found in his car.

Three days after the case had been submitted and filed the victim became uncooperative. Jail calls between the defendant and his sister eluded to the fact that the sister, or someone she knew, was going to talk to the victim and get her to change her story, which the victim ultimately did. Victim went to law enforcement and told them the defendant did not force entry into her home.

Then six months later she met with a defense attorney and changed her story again saying that the phone was taken from the porch and not inside the home at all. This information, was not provided to our office until the middle of trial, specifically during the cross-examination of the victim by defense counsel.

Why does it matter? 1st Degree Burglary requires entry into a home with the intent to steal or commit a felony. If the phone was taken off the porch, no entry was made, which means no burglary. The case was sunk because of the inconsistent and undisclosed information victim had provided. Not-guilty.

Several months later this same defendant broke into the home of another girlfriend and took her phone as well. He also pushed the girlfriend into a table and threatened her. This later case had a different result, one that resulted in a plea instead of a trial.

As is often the case with domestic violence, once the immediate threat of danger has passed, victim’s often begin to blame themselves for the trouble the defendant has gotten themselves into. Stories change, and it is a prosecutor’s job to make sure there is enough information from other sources to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the crime in fact occurred. Prosecutors use 911 calls, independent witnesses, physical injuries, prior conduct of the defendant, and prior inconsistent statements regularly to show a jury what happened despite the victim’s change of tune. Sometimes prosecutors bring in experts to explain why a victim would lie on the stand when they are involved in an unhealthy and physically violent relationship. None of that was available in #28 given the untimely disclosure of information and a victim who did not want defendant to get in trouble.