police of the injuries inflicted on him by the victim during the fight in which he stabbed the victim. If Thomas’ allegations are true, such evidence would have corroborated his self-defense claim. The trial court interpreted Thomas’ claim as referring to photographs of injuries inflicted upon him by the victim at some time prior to the incident in which the stabbing occurred and denied the claim, finding that Thomas had not shown prejudice. We do not read Thomas’ motion this way, and the trial court did not attach any record documents to support its conclusion. Moreover, we cannot say that, even if Thomas was referring to photographs of an earlier injury inflicted by the victim, he was not prejudiced by counsel’s failure to present them to the jury. See, e.g., Smith, 573 So.2d at 318 (<HOLDING>). Therefore, we reverse and remand for an
holding that corroborative evidence of prior specific acts of violence by victim may be admissible in selfdefense case where the defendant knew of the act holding that evidence of assault on victim that was subsequent to the arson for which defendant was tried was admissible to show defendants bent of mind toward violence directed at the victim holding that a defendant who alleges selfdefense can show through the testimony of another witness that the alleged victim had a propensity for violence thereby inferring that the alleged victim was the aggressor a defendants prior knowledge of the victims reputation for violence is irrelevant because the evidence is offered to show the conduct of the victim rather than the defendants state of mind holding that uncharged sexual acts committed upon the same victim are admissible to show the conduct of the defendant toward the victim and to corroborate the evidence of the offense charged in the indictment holding that before a defendant is entitled to introduce evidence of the victims character for violence there must be sufficient evidence to support a finding that the victim was the first aggressor and that once the defendant testified that he was attacked and cut by the victim without provocation before using the victims utility tool to stab the victim the defendant was clearly entitled to question the victim about past acts of violence reflected in court documents from the state of oregon