People v. Abbot
19 Wend. 192 (1838)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In a prosecution for rape, evidence of the prosecutrix's prior sexual conduct with men other than the defendant is admissible because it is relevant to the material issue of consent.
Facts:
- The defendant was a married man and a clergyman.
- The prosecutrix was employed as a servant in the defendant's home.
- The prosecutrix alleged that the defendant engaged in secret, 'stolen interviews' with her.
- The alleged criminal acts occurred in private, with the prosecutrix being the sole witness to the principal events.
Procedural Posture:
- The defendant was indicted on multiple counts, including rape and assault with intent to commit rape.
- A trial was held in the court of general sessions (a trial court).
- At trial, the defense counsel attempted to cross-examine the prosecutrix about her prior sexual relations with other men.
- The trial court judge sustained the prosecution's objection and ruled that the question was improper, disallowing the inquiry.
- The defense appealed this evidentiary ruling to the New York Supreme Court of Judicature.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
In a prosecution for rape, may the defendant introduce evidence of the prosecutrix's prior sexual intercourse with other men to challenge the element of non-consent?
Opinions:
Majority - Cowen, J.
Yes. In a prosecution for rape, evidence of the prosecutrix's prior sexual intercourse with other men is admissible because it is directly relevant to the material issue of consent. The court reasoned that the core issue in a rape case is the prosecutrix's state of mind—specifically, her willingness or reluctance. Given that these crimes occur in private, defendants must rely on circumstantial evidence. The court held that any fact suggesting a lack of 'utmost reluctance and the utmost resistance' is admissible to create doubt about the absence of consent. It reasoned that a jury could infer consent more readily in a 'practised Messalina' than in a 'reserved and virtuous Lucretia,' making a prosecutrix's prior sexual history, even an isolated instance, competent evidence. The court explicitly rejected English precedents like Rex v. Hodgson and Rex v. Clarke, which had deemed such inquiries into specific acts with other men to be inadmissible and collateral. Additionally, the court found the trial itself was void because the court of sessions lacked jurisdiction to hear a rape case, a crime punishable by life imprisonment.
Analysis:
This case established a precedent that made a rape complainant's sexual history a central issue at trial, effectively putting the victim's character on trial alongside the defendant's actions. It reflects a 19th-century judicial perspective that a woman's prior sexual conduct is directly probative of her likelihood to consent to a specific sexual act. This holding significantly disadvantaged female complainants in sexual assault cases for over a century until modern jurisprudence and rape shield statutes were enacted to prohibit such evidence, recognizing it as prejudicial and largely irrelevant to the issue of consent in a specific instance.
