Call us now:
It may sound obvious, but you are entitled to present your defense. This may beg the question, how did a case like this even come about? Well let me explain. The law and rules of evidence provide a framework for how to have facts presented to a jury, so you can have a fair hearing on whatever issue is in dispute. And when rules are involved, some evidence may be allowed or not allowed. The problem is that if someone is deciding repeatedly and consistently that you are not allowed to show your evidence, regardless of the rules, your right to a fair hearing or trial is actually being taken away right in front of you. When that happens hopefully you have expert legal counsel and appellate judges willing to stand up for the rule of law.
When a person is accused of a serious crime, the Constitution guarantees them the right to present a defense and to confront the witnesses against them. These rights—enshrined in the Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and Article I, § 16(a) of the Florida Constitution—were at the center of the First District Court of Appeal’s recent decision in McCray v. State.
The court reversed Abraham McCray’s conviction for sexual battery on a physically helpless victim after finding that the trial court improperly excluded critical evidence that supported his defense.
The Case Background
McCray was charged after a woman he had been partying with claimed she awoke in a tent without her pants and later experienced pain and bruising. The State argued she had been unconscious and assaulted by McCray. McCray, however, claimed the sex was consensual and that her injuries could have been caused by a separate bathroom attack just days earlier by another man.
At trial, the defense sought to cross-examine the victim and witnesses about that earlier violent attack. The victim herself had proffered (which means the Defense questioned her in front of the judge under oath outside of the presence of the jury) that she was grabbed, pushed against a wall, and into a sink during a bathroom struggle with another man. Both a detective and a nurse testified in another proffer that those injuries could have explained her bruises. Nevertheless, the trial court repeatedly barred any reference to the bathroom incident, ruling it inadmissible.
The jury, left with only the State’s theory of the case, convicted McCray. This case made clear – If we want to have fair trials – you have to allow the Defense to thoroughly cross examine alleged victims. It is not enough in our society for the State to declare someone a victim. Only the jury decides after hearing the evidence. Not a Judge. Not the State. And here, the jury will get to decide again.
The Majority Opinion: Denial of a Constitutional Right
The First DCA reversed, holding that McCray had been denied his constitutional right to present a defense and to confront witnesses.
The court emphasized that relevant evidence—defined as that which tends to prove or disprove a material fact (§ 90.401, Fla. Stat.)—was wrongly excluded. Florida law makes clear that it is reversible error to exclude any evidence that even indirectly creates reasonable doubt. See Patrick v. State, 104 So. 3d 1046, 1056 (Fla. 2012); Mizell v. State, 350 So. 3d 97, 101 (Fla. 1st DCA 2022).
Because the only physical evidence of non-consent was the bruising, the defense’s alternative explanation—that the bruises originated from the prior bathroom attack—was crucial. Preventing the jury from hearing it stripped McCray of the ability to test the reliability of the State’s case. As the court noted, cross-examination is the “principal means by which the believability of a witness and the truth of his testimony are tested.” Davis v. Alaska, 415 U.S. 308, 316 (1974).
The majority concluded the exclusion was not harmless error under State v. DiGuilio, 491 So. 2d 1129 (Fla. 1986), because the bruises were the linchpin of the State’s case. The conviction was reversed and remanded for a new trial.
The Concurrence: Evidence Code Safeguards
Judge Winokur concurred fully but wrote separately to emphasize that the Florida Evidence Code itself provided the tools to avoid such constitutional violations. This judge explained that there were other rulings during this case that on their own would cause a reversal of the conviction.
For example. The Defense was prevented from cross examining the alleged victim on two crucial points. One, that after waking from her sleep she was told about a rumor circulating that she was videotaped in a sexual encounter on the internet. And two, that she knew that if the facility was aware she was consensually using drugs and having sex, she would be evicted. The Court pointed out rules that are crucial for all judges and legal practitioners should accept:
- Under §§ 90.401–90.402, relevant evidence is admissible unless specifically prohibited.
- Section 90.608 permits impeachment of a witness through inconsistent statements or evidence contradicting their account.
- Importantly, Florida’s rape shield law (§ 794.022(2), Fla. Stat.) did not apply here, because the prior bathroom incident was nonconsensual and therefore outside the statute’s protection.
Judge Winokur argued that the trial court misapplied its gatekeeping role by excluding relevant impeachment evidence. Proper application of the Evidence Code—particularly the rules on relevance, impeachment, and exceptions to hearsay—would have allowed the defense to challenge the victim’s credibility without prejudicing the jury.
The Dissent: Lack of Admissible Proof
In dissent, Judge Kelsey contended that the defense failed to present admissible proof that any injuries actually resulted from the prior bathroom attack. He criticized the majority for relying on speculation and proffered testimony, arguing that there was “an utter lack of admissible evidence that any injury occurred in the bathroom attack.”
In his view, without substantive evidence, the trial court acted within its discretion to exclude the incident as irrelevant or unfairly prejudicial under § 90.403, Fla. Stat.
Why This Case Matters
The McCray decision underscores the fundamental importance of the right to present a defense. Courts cannot shield juries from plausible alternative explanations of key evidence—especially in “he said, she said” cases hinging on credibility and circumstantial injury evidence.
For defendants, this case illustrates how trial rulings on evidence can determine the outcome of a case. For defense attorneys, it is a reminder to aggressively preserve objections and proffers to protect appellate rights.
Ultimately, the case reaffirms that the truth-seeking process of a trial depends on a fair opportunity for both sides to present their theory—and for juries to weigh competing evidence.
Key Takeaway
McCray’s conviction was reversed because the jury never heard evidence of an alternative explanation for the victim’s injuries. Both the U.S. Constitution and Florida law protect a defendant’s right to present such evidence, and when trial courts wrongly exclude it, convictions cannot stand.
Why Retaining an Attorney Matters
Criminal Defense Lawyer Matt Landsman at Landsman Law helps people accused of crimes in Gainesville, Alachua County, Bradford County, Levy County, Gilchrist County, and surrounding areas of north Florida. If you need help for yourself or a loved one, contact Criminal Defense Attorney Matt Landsman for a free consultation today. For help with any Criminal Matter from Board Certified Criminal Trial Lawyer Matt Landsman – CALL NOW
If you’re accused of any criminal matter, retaining an attorney is critical to protecting your rights. These cases will involve constitutional questions and concern allegations of misconduct or are sensitive in nature, requiring a skill, preparation and experience. For expert legal help, contact Gainesville Defense Lawyer Matt Landsman to protect your rights today.