Supreme Court Appeal
Case Details:
Did the State’s introduction of more than fifty sexually explicit photographs, which were taken after the victim turned eighteen, for the purpose of establishing the existence of a sexual relationship between defendant and the victim when the victim was a minor, constitute plain error that required the reversal of defendant’s convictions for sexual assault; and was it reversible error for the State to comment in summation on defendant’s silence when he was confronted by the victim during a recorded conversation?
Case Dates:
- Certification granted: Feb. 9, 2018
- Posted: Feb. 12, 2018
- Argued: Sept. 27, 2018
- Decided: Jan. 16, 2019