Mattos

Summary

The court affirmed the defendant’s convictions, holding that the constancy-of-accusation testimony was properly admitted, that the defendant failed to establish a constitutional violation from the restriction on cross-examining a state witness about pending charges, and that the lack of a specific unanimity instruction did not prejudice him. Although the sexual-assault count was duplicitous and the instructional claim was not waived because controlling law changed after trial, the record showed that the prosecution and defense focused on one specific instance of anal penetration and used a unified fabrication defense, eliminating a realistic possibility of juror disagreement. There were no separate opinions.