State v. Jones
230 P.3d 576 (2010)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A criminal defendant's Sixth Amendment right to present a defense is violated when a trial court applies a rape shield statute to bar testimony about the defendant's version of events contemporaneous with the alleged crime, as such testimony is of high probative value and the statute only applies to past sexual behavior.
Facts:
- K.D. alleged that her uncle, Christopher Jones, put his hands around her neck and forcibly raped her.
- Jones sought to testify that on the night in question, he and K.D. went to a truck stop where they met two other men and one woman.
- According to Jones, K.D. consumed alcohol and cocaine during a nine-hour event.
- Jones claimed that during this event, K.D. engaged in consensual sexual intercourse with him and the two other men.
- After a warrant was issued for his arrest, Jones fled to Texas.
- Upon being extradited from Texas, Jones initially denied any sexual contact with K.D. to police.
- Jones also initially refused to provide police with a DNA swab sample.
Procedural Posture:
- Christopher Jones was charged with first degree rape in Benton County Superior Court (trial court).
- A jury found Jones not guilty of first degree rape but deadlocked on the lesser included offense of second degree rape.
- The State amended the charge to second degree rape with an aggravating circumstance for a second trial.
- Prior to the second trial, the court ruled that Jones could not testify about the alleged consensual sex party, finding the testimony barred by the rape shield statute.
- The jury in the second trial found Jones guilty of second degree rape with the aggravating circumstance.
- Jones (appellant) appealed to the Washington Court of Appeals, Division Three.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction.
- Jones (petitioner) then appealed to the Supreme Court of Washington, which granted review.
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 violate a criminal defendant's Sixth Amendment right to present a defense by applying the rape shield statute to prohibit testimony that the alleged rape was part of a contemporaneous, consensual sexual encounter involving multiple participants?
Opinions:
Majority - Owens, J.
Yes. A trial court violates the Sixth Amendment right to present a defense when it bars a defendant from testifying about his version of the events of an alleged rape. The court held that the excluded evidence of a consensual 'sex party' was not marginally relevant but was Jones's entire defense and therefore of extremely high probative value. Citing its precedent in State v. Hudlow, the court reasoned that while the state has an interest in excluding prejudicial evidence, no state interest can be compelling enough to preclude the introduction of evidence of such high probative value without violating the defendant's constitutional rights. Furthermore, the court found Washington's rape shield statute (RCW 9A.44.020(2)) inapplicable because its plain language limits it to a victim's 'past sexual behavior,' not conduct contemporaneous with the alleged crime. The court concluded the error was not harmless because a reasonable jury, upon hearing Jones's version of events, might have reached a different result.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the supremacy of a defendant's Sixth Amendment right to present a defense over the mechanical application of state evidentiary rules like rape shield statutes. The court clarifies that the scope of Washington's rape shield law is limited to 'past' conduct and cannot be used to exclude a defendant's testimony about the alleged criminal incident itself. This ruling protects a defendant's ability to present a complete narrative of consent, even if that narrative is unsavory, by establishing that such testimony is of inherently high probative value and constitutionally protected. Future cases will likely use this precedent to challenge broad interpretations of rape shield laws that impinge on a defendant's core right to testify in their own defense.
