Split Md. high court allows behavior testimony in sex abuse cases

People accused of sexually abusing a child may present testimony at trial from individuals attesting to the defendants’ appropriate behavior toward children in their care, Maryland’s top court has ruled over the objection of two judges who said such testimonials should be inadmissible because abusers often disguise themselves as gentle.

In a 5-2 decision Tuesday, the Court of Appeals said appropriateness toward children may be a “pertinent” character trait for defendants to introduce in child sexual abuse cases, particularly when the defense is that the allegation was false and not just a misunderstanding. The high court stated that its view on admitting such character evidence is shared by most U.S. state court systems.

“While not all people who have reputations for appropriate interaction with children in their custody or care refrain from sexually abusing some of those children, we expect that almost all people in positions of trust toward children who do refrain from sexually abusing those children, over time, will have built reputations in their community for appropriateness with children,” Judge Jonathan Biran wrote for the court’s majority.

“For an innocent teacher, coach or other person occupying a position of trust who has been falsely accused of child sexual abuse, the ability to introduce opinion or reputation evidence from respected members of the community about the defendant’s appropriateness with children in his custody or care may not only be relevant, but also crucial to avoid a miscarriage of justice,” Biran added. “We have confidence that juries will be able to appropriately weigh such character evidence in conjunction with all the other relevant evidence they receive in child sexual abuse cases.”

The high court rendered its decision in holding that a trial judge erred in denying a dismissed Silver Spring elementary school teacher’s request to introduce such good-character testimony in his child sexual abuse trial. However, the court ultimately found the error was “harmless” because the Montgomery County Circuit Court jury was presented with such overwhelming evidence of guilt that John Vigna’s conviction for having abused students must be affirmed.

In its ruling, the majority noted that character testimony regarding a defendant’s peacefulness and truthfulness are admissible when facing charges of assault and fraud. Likewise, a defendant’s appropriateness toward children may be admitted when he or she stands accused of sexually abusing youngsters, the majority added.

But Judge Michele D. Hotten disagreed, saying the analogy does not apply to the “particularly insidious” behavior of child sexual abusers.

“Evidence of appropriate behavior or conduct with children, unlike character for truthfulness or peacefulness in a fraud or assault investigation, adds nothing to a child sex abuse prosecution, because of the nature of the allegations,” Hotten wrote in an opinion Judge Shirley M. Watts joined.

“These types of sexual predators often hide in plain sight,” Hotten added. “They blend into the community and often stand in trust relationships – coaches, clergy, teachers, physicians, or family members – with their victims. They groom victims through these relationships and skillfully manipulate a child into a situation where he or she can be more readily sexually abused and is simultaneously less likely to disclose.”

The Maryland Office of Attorney General declined to comment on the high court’s decision.

Vigna’s attorney, Justin T. Eisele, did not immediately return a message seeking comment on the ruling Thursday. Eisele is with Mirriam Z. Seddiq LLC in Rockville.

Vigna was dismissed in 2016 from the teaching position he had held since 1992 amid the criminal investigation of his alleged abuse.

The evidence at Vigna’s 2017 trial included testimony from five former female students that he had touched them inappropriately while sitting on his lap at Cloverly Elementary School. These accusations were supported by evidence that Vigna’s former colleagues and supervisors had spoken about what they saw as his inappropriate contact with students while he taught third, fourth and fifth grade.

Vigna, once a very popular teacher with students and their parents, defended his actions as innocent displays of affection toward students he regarded as family. But Montgomery County Circuit Judge David A. Boynton rejected Vigna’s request to introduce testimony from colleagues, students’ parents and his 12-year-old niece regarding what they had seen as his appropriate behavior toward children.

Boynton said character testimony is admissible only when it addresses a general trait – such as peacefulness or truthfulness – and not the defendant’s specific interactions, such as behavior toward a group. Boynton allowed the witnesses to testify that they regarded Vigna as law-abiding and truthful.

The jury found Vigna guilty of four counts of sexual abuse of a minor and five counts of third degree sex offense. He was sentenced to 80 years in prison, with all but 48 years suspended.

The Court of Special Appeals upheld the conviction, prompting Vigna’s ill-fated appeal to the high court.

“For many years, John Vigna was a popular elementary school teacher in Silver Spring, Maryland,” Biran wrote.

“But, as our nation has learned all too well, it is possible for a person to be a popular teacher (or coach or trainer or member of the clergy, etc.) and, at the same time, to sexually abuse children entrusted to his care,” Biran added. “According to the evidence the jury heard in this case, Vigna sexually abused several female students while he was their teacher.”

Biran was joined in the opinion by Chief Judge Mary Ellen Barbera and Judges Robert N. McDonald, Joseph M. Getty and Brynja M. Booth.

Hotten and Watts agreed only with the court’s judgment affirming Vigna’s conviction.

The Court of Appeals rendered its decision in John Vigna v. State of Maryland, No. 55, September Term 2019.