People v. Wilhelm
190 Mich.App. 574, 476 N.W.2d 753 (1991)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Michigan's rape-shield statute prohibits the admission of a victim's prior sexual conduct with third persons to prove consent, even if the conduct occurred in public shortly before the alleged assault, as such evidence is irrelevant and its exclusion does not violate the defendant's Sixth Amendment right of confrontation.
Facts:
- Defendant and the victim were present in the same bar but were not there together.
- Defendant claimed he observed the victim lift her shirt, expose her breasts to two men at her table, and allow one of the men to 'fondle' her breasts.
- Later that same evening, defendant and the victim were together in defendant's boat, which was parked in his parents' driveway.
- Sexual intercourse occurred between the defendant and the victim inside the boat.
- Defendant claimed the intercourse was consensual, while the victim claimed it was not.
- Both the defendant and the victim testified that sexual penetration occurred.
Procedural Posture:
- Defendant was charged with first-degree criminal sexual conduct and kidnapping in a state trial court.
- Following a jury trial, defendant was convicted of the lesser offense of third-degree criminal sexual conduct.
- The trial court imposed a sentence of three years and nine months to ten years' imprisonment.
- Defendant appealed his conviction as of right to the Michigan Court of Appeals, an intermediate appellate court.
- The Court of Appeals initially issued an opinion reversing the defendant's conviction.
- Subsequently, the Court of Appeals granted a rehearing on its own motion to reconsider the case.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does Michigan's rape-shield statute violate a defendant's Sixth Amendment right of confrontation when it is applied to exclude evidence of a victim's allegedly public, sexually suggestive conduct with third persons that occurred on the same night as the charged offense?
Opinions:
Majority - Per Curiam
No, the application of Michigan's rape-shield statute to exclude the proffered evidence did not violate the defendant's right of confrontation. The court reasoned that evidence of a victim's sexual conduct with a third party is irrelevant to the issue of whether she consented to sexual intercourse with the defendant. The public nature of the alleged acts does not remove them from the statute's protection, as the law aims not only to protect privacy but also to prevent trials from becoming inquisitions into a victim's past. The court distinguished this case, where the defendant merely observed the conduct, from cases where a defendant was a direct participant in the victim's public sexual activity, finding the evidence here was not probative of consent and therefore its exclusion was proper.
Concurring - Shepherd, P.J.
No, the evidence was properly excluded, but for a different primary reason. The concurrence focuses on the defendant's failure to comply with the rape-shield statute's ten-day notice requirement for proffering such evidence. This procedural failure deprived the prosecution of the opportunity to investigate the defendant's allegations. Citing Michigan v. Lucas, the author argues that notice-and-hearing requirements are constitutional and essential for fairness. Because the defendant did not follow the proper procedure, the trial court was correct to exclude the evidence without needing to reach the substantive question of its admissibility, and the conviction should be affirmed on that basis.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the strength and breadth of Michigan's rape-shield law, clarifying that the 'public' nature of a victim's alleged prior sexual conduct does not create an automatic exception to the statute's prohibitions. The ruling establishes that the key inquiry is relevance to consent with the defendant, not a general disposition, thereby protecting victims from having unrelated public behavior used against them. It also highlights the critical importance of procedural compliance with the statute's notice requirements, affirming that a defendant's failure to provide timely notice can be an independent and sufficient ground for excluding such evidence.
