Judge Considers '95 Rape Verdict Against Onstott

A judge must decide whether jurors in David Lee Onstott's murder trial can be told about his 1995 conviction for raping a 25-year-old woman.

Prosecutors are seeking the death penalty for Onstott in the 2005 slaying of 13-year-old Sarah Michelle Lunde. Although authorities say Onstott confessed, they have no physical evidence linking him to the crime.

Faced with a tough case, prosecutors want to introduce evidence that Onstott raped his girlfriend in 1995, arguing that the crime was similar to the circumstances of Lunde's death. For example, prosecutors say the victim in the 1995 case reported that Onstott choked her, and Onstott is said to have told detectives he choked Lunde.

Generally, evidence of a defendant's bad character or propensity to commit crimes is not admissible in court. However, judges do grant an exception when the evidence can establish a specific pattern.

Onstott's attorney, Assistant Public Defender John Skye, argued during a hearing Wednesday that the incidents are so different that any similarities do not fulfill the legal requirements to make the 1995 rape admissible. Skye pointed out that Onstott was acquitted of one count of sexual battery in the 1995 case and convicted of a lesser charge of sexual battery with slight force.

"It's not even close," Skye told Judge Ronald Ficarrotta. "This would do nothing but what the statute says you can't do, which is show bad character or propensity. [Allowing the evidence] would be a bad idea."

Assistant State Attorney Jay Pruner said Onstott's specific description of how he choked Lunde was "strikingly similar" to how the victim in the 1995 case says she was choked. In that case, Pruner said, the victim said Onstott put his arm around her neck. Pruner was not permitted to recite portions of Onstott's statement in the Lunde case because Ficarrotta has ordered the statements sealed.

Skye said that under case law, the evidence clearly is inadmissible.

"It's perfectly clear to all of us here that the state wants this evidence really, really, really bad, but that doesn't make it admissible," he said.

The 1995 conviction is not the only evidence issue in the case.

It is unclear whether Onstott's statements, including the purported confession, will be allowed in his trial. Defense lawyers are challenging the admissibility of those statements. Ficarrotta has scheduled a three-day hearing on the admissibility of Onstott's statements starting Feb. 21.

Ficarrotta said he will reread the relevant case law and try to have a ruling by next week.

Onstott is scheduled to go on trial in March.

Reporter Elaine Silvestrini can be reached at (813) 259-7837.