A man convicted of sexually assaulting a young girl is entitled to a hearing on his related to his claims of new evidence indicating the girl falsely accused others of sexual assault and recanted her accusation against him to her mother, the state Court of Appeals ruled recently.
Zachary Larson's motion said that that "refusal to allow plea withdrawal on the basis of newly discovered evidence would result in a manifest injustice," the District III Court of appeals panel said. "We conclude that Larson is entitled to an evidentiary hearing because his motion alleges sufficient facts that, if true, would entitle him to the relief he seeks."
The unsigned decision overturned Pierce County Circuit Judge Joseph Boles' decision to deny Larson's request without a hearing. The appellate panel included Judges Lisa Stark, Gregory Gill Jr., and Thomas Hruz.
Larson was 16 years old in October 2015 when "Lucy," as she is referred to in the decision, accused him of assaulting her when she spent the night at his house. Lucy was nine.
The state charged Larson with with one count of first-degree sexual assault. Larson, 17 by the time he was charged, agreed to a plea deal calling for the charge to be withheld for five years and, if he successfully met certain conditions, the state would dismiss the count. He also agreed to plead guilty to an additional charge of fourth-degree sexual assault of a child in the same case and bail jumping related to a separate case.
Boles accepted the main plea agreement and placed Larson on three years' probation on the latter charges.
Larson violated the terms of the deferral agreement and his probation when he was 19 by having a 17-year-old girlfriend, according to the appellate brief filed by Assistant State Defender Thomas Aquino on Larson's behalf.
Assistant State Attorney General Kieran O'Day did not discuss the nature of Larson's violations in his brief in opposition.
Larson's probation and deferral agreement were revoked and Boles sentenced him to five years in prison followed by 10 years of extended supervision.
Before he was sentenced, however, Larson asked to withdraw his plea to the first-degree sexual assault charge.
"He alleged multiple bases for relief, including, as relevant to this appeal, newly discovered evidence," the appeals panel wrote.
Larson alleged that Lucy's mother told the district attorney's office in May 2019 that Lucy had made accusations against other people in Minnesota and had recanted her allegations against Larson, the panel said.
Larson said that “ '[Lucy] told a friend that the sexual assault by Mr. Larson did not occur and [Lucy] wanted to see what would happen,' ” the panel wrote. "Lucy’s mother also 'received both text and verbal assertions from [Lucy] that she falsely accused' Larson. ... Further, Lucy’s mother 'confirmed that [Lucy] has accused four (4) other people of sexual assault, specifically the same types of accusations' made against Larson."
Aquino, in his appellate brief, said the Pierce County DA's office provided the information to officials in Minnesota, "but did not inform defense counsel until a year later."
O'Day said that Larson had not provided enough evidence to substantiate or corroborate the recantations.
The state argued that much of the evidence of any false accusations made against others would be inadmissible under the state's rape shield law that generally prohibits introduction of any evidence related to an alleged victim's sexual history.
The panel disagreed. Larson is not required to prove admissibility at this stage, the judges said.
"Further, as Larson notes, admissibility of evidence under the circumstances presented in this case 'is a highly fact-specific inquiry that requires a balancing of many interests,' ” the panel said.
The panel also rejected the state's argument that the other-accusations evidence was hearsay.
"Larson was not provided an opportunity to call Lucy to testify at an evidentiary hearing where (depending on her testimony) the circuit court could have considered her credibility and other bases for the admissibility of her alleged recantation," the judges said.
In seeking a hearing, "Larson was not required to submit affidavits in support of his plea withdrawal motion; he needed only to allege sufficient facts that, if true, would entitle him to relief," the panel said.
The court also noted that "there was no physical evidence of Lucy’s sexual assault, there were no other witnesses to the assault identified in the complaint, the complaint did not detail any incriminating statements made by Larson, and Lucy’s forensic interview was the only direct evidence of the assault."
"It is clear from the circuit court’s decision that it did not consider the assertions in Larson’s motion to be credible or admissible," the panel said. "However, given that Larson’s motion alleged sufficient material facts that, if true, would entitle him to relief, the proper procedure is to hold a hearing to resolve these evidentiary and credibility issues.
The full decision in 22AP172, State v. Zachary J. Larson, is here.
Comments