the issue of Bolden’s guilt or innocence on the charge of second degree murder. Numerous courts have held, applying the “issues necessarily adjudicated” test that in previous trials on other charges, juries necessarily pass upon the veracity of a defendant in reaching a verdict of acquittal. United States v. Hernandez, 572 F.2d 218 (9th Cir.1978) (acquittal in first trial on charge of billing the government for more hours spent providing legal services than were actually spent; second trial for perjury); United States v. Nash, 447 F.2d 1382 (4th Cir.1971) (acquitted in first trial on mail theft charge, subsequently charged with perjury on basis of the impossibility of defendant’s having ob tained money as she testified in first trial); Jay v. State, 15 Ala.App. 255, 73 So. 137 (1916) (<HOLDING>); Youngblood v. United States, 266 F. 795 (8th
holding that further inquiry into falsity of defendants prior testimony in a rape case is barred holding that application of the rape shield law to a case in which the underlying events occurred prior to the enactment of the rape shield law was not a violation of the constitutional prohibition against ex post facto laws holding that the trial court in a sexual assault case erred by refusing to allow evidence of prior testimony by the complainant in an unrelated rape prosecution holding that the defendants offer of the affiants sworn testimony to establish falsity of the warrant affidavit did not amount to a substantial preliminary showing of falsity under franks holding that a rape shield statute was not ex post facto when it barred evidence of a prior sexual relationship that was admissible before enactment of the statute