influence (“OUI”). In response to Hart’s pre-trial motion to preclude use of this conviction, the court had initially limited Verizon’s cross-examination to the facts of his OUI arrest and prohibited Verizon from eliciting the fact of his conviction. In response to questions about his arrest, however, Hart volunteered that a juror had told him “You have grounds for a mistrial.” Hart later said that the arrest was upsetting but the trial “was vindication for me after what happened.” The court then permitted Verizon to inquire into the result of that trial, without objection from Hart’s counsel. Because Hart opened the door to the actual result of his OUI trial, the court did not err in allowing the inquiry into his conviction. See, e.g., Beck v. Haik, 377 F.3d 624, 642 (6th Cir. 2004) (<HOLDING>). Hart also argues that the court erred by
holding that the trial court properly refused to permit the defendant to question the nineyearold victim as to whether he had been sexually abused in the past because indianas rape shield statute shields the victim of a sex crime from a general inquiry into the history of past sexual conduct holding the harmed victim need not be the victim of the offense of conviction 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 holding that testimony of drowning victims mother that victim wasnt convicted when asked on crossexamination in civil rights action whether he had ever gotten into trouble opened door to question regarding whether victim had ever gone to prison holding that argument regarding victim of prior offense was improper