State of Maryland v. Lee Franklin DeLawder
28 Md. App. 212, 344 A.2d 446 (1975)
Rule of Law:
A defendant's Sixth Amendment right to confrontation, which includes cross-examining a witness to expose potential bias or ulterior motive, is paramount to a state's evidentiary rule that prohibits inquiry into a statutory rape victim's prior sexual history when such inquiry is essential to the defense's theory of the case.
Facts:
- Lee Franklin DeLawder was accused of carnal knowledge of a female under the age of 14.
- The prosecutrix had a very strict mother, of whom she was fearful.
- Prior to the alleged incident, the prosecutrix told her best friend that she was pregnant by one of two other young men.
- DeLawder's defense theory was that the prosecutrix fabricated the rape allegation because she believed she was pregnant and was afraid to tell her mother she had engaged in consensual sex.
- The prosecutrix also allegedly told another young man, two days after the incident with DeLawder, that she was pregnant by another man.
- A medical examination conducted about six hours after the alleged crime revealed bruising that the examining physician believed occurred within two or three days prior to the examination.
Procedural Posture:
- Lee Franklin DeLawder was convicted by a jury in the Circuit Court for Montgomery County (trial court) of carnal knowledge.
- The judgment was affirmed on direct appeal by the Court of Special Appeals of Maryland (intermediate appellate court).
- DeLawder filed a petition for post-conviction relief in the Circuit Court for Montgomery County.
- The circuit court denied relief.
- DeLawder sought leave to appeal to the Court of Special Appeals, which remanded the case for the circuit court to provide a memorandum explaining its reasons.
- On remand, the circuit court granted post-conviction relief, vacated DeLawder's conviction, and ordered a new trial, finding his right of confrontation had been violated under the retroactively applied Davis v. Alaska.
- The State, as appellant, applied for leave to appeal the circuit court's order granting a new trial to the Court of Special Appeals of Maryland, which was granted.
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 a trial court's application of an evidentiary rule that bars inquiry into a statutory rape victim's prior sexual history violate a defendant's Sixth Amendment right to confrontation when the defendant seeks to use such evidence not to prove consent, but to show the victim's specific motive to lie?
Opinions:
Majority - Orth, C. J.
Yes. The trial court's restriction of cross-examination violated DeLawder's right to confrontation. The Sixth Amendment guarantees a defendant the right to conduct effective cross-examination to reveal a witness's possible biases, prejudices, or ulterior motives. In this case, DeLawder’s entire defense rested on his theory that the prosecutrix had a powerful motive to fabricate the rape allegation—namely, her fear of her strict mother upon discovering she might be pregnant from consensual sex with others. By preventing defense counsel from exploring this theory, the trial court denied the jury the opportunity to hear facts from which they could draw inferences about the witness's reliability. Citing Davis v. Alaska, the court held that the right of confrontation is paramount to the state's evidentiary rule protecting the prosecutrix from inquiry into her prior sexual conduct when that evidence is not offered to show consent but to establish a motive to lie. This denial of effective cross-examination is a constitutional error of the first magnitude.
Analysis:
This decision significantly clarifies the balance between a defendant's Sixth Amendment confrontation rights and state evidentiary rules, often precursors to modern rape shield laws. It extends the principle of Davis v. Alaska, which involved a witness's juvenile record and probation status, to the sensitive area of a sex crime victim's prior sexual history. The ruling establishes that when a defendant proffers a specific, plausible theory of a witness's motive to fabricate, the constitutional right to present that defense to the jury can override evidentiary rules designed to protect the witness. This creates a critical, fact-specific exception that requires trial courts to look beyond the general prohibition and assess whether the evidence is truly offered to show bias rather than to improperly attack the victim's character.
Gunnerbot
AI-powered case assistant
Loaded: State of Maryland v. Lee Franklin DeLawder (1975)
Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"