State v. STEPHEN F.
2008 NMSC 037, 144 N.M. 360, 188 P.3d 84 (2008)
Rule of Law:
A criminal defendant's Sixth Amendment right to confront witnesses overrides state rape shield statutes when evidence of a victim's prior sexual conduct is necessary to establish a specific motive to fabricate charges, such as fear of parental punishment.
Facts:
- Stephen F., aged 15, and B.G., aged 16, were friends, and Stephen frequently spent the night at B.G.'s family home.
- On the night of the incident, Stephen and B.G. consumed alcohol and watched a movie together in her bedroom.
- Stephen and B.G. engaged in oral, vaginal, and anal intercourse.
- The following morning, B.G. informed her mother that Stephen had raped her.
- Stephen admitted to the sexual acts but claimed B.G. consented.
- B.G.'s parents held strict religious convictions opposing premarital sex.
- In a prior incident, B.G. had been punished by her parents after they discovered she engaged in consensual sex with a boyfriend.
- Stephen sought to use the evidence of this prior punishment to prove B.G. had a motive to fabricate the rape allegation to avoid similar parental discipline.
Procedural Posture:
- Stephen filed a pretrial motion under Rule 11-413 to admit evidence of the victim's past punishment for sexual conduct.
- The trial court denied the motion and prohibited cross-examination regarding the prior incident.
- The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's decision, finding a violation of Stephen's Sixth Amendment rights.
- The State petitioned the Supreme Court of New Mexico for certiorari to review the Court of Appeals' decision.
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 the Sixth Amendment right of confrontation require the admission of evidence regarding a rape victim's prior sexual conduct—specifically punishment she received for a previous incident—despite the state's rape shield statute, when such evidence is offered to establish a motive to fabricate the current charges?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Bosson
Yes. The Court held that a defendant must be permitted to cross-examine a complainant regarding prior sexual conduct when that evidence provides a specific motive to lie, such as fear of punishment, because the constitutional right to present a defense outweighs the privacy protections of the rape shield statute. The Court reasoned that while rape shield laws serve the important purpose of protecting victims from irrelevant inquiries into their sexual history, they cannot be applied mechanistically to defeat the ends of justice. Applying the Johnson framework, the Court found that the evidence was clearly relevant to the material issue of bias and motive. The Court emphasized that the dissimilarity between the prior consensual sex and the alleged rape (Factor 2) was irrelevant because the motive to lie stemmed from the punishment for the act, not the nature of the act itself. Excluding this evidence deprived the jury of essential information needed to evaluate the victim's credibility, which was the central issue in the case.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the supremacy of the Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause over evidentiary statutes like rape shield laws when the two seek to balance competing interests. It clarifies the application of the Johnson five-factor test, specifically ruling that the 'similarity' factor is not a rigid requirement and may be irrelevant depending on the defense's theory of relevance (here, fear of punishment rather than consent pattern). The ruling ensures that defendants retain the ability to expose witness bias and motive, even if it involves sensitive subject matter, provided the evidence is not used merely to show a propensity for unchastity. This creates a precedent that trial courts must carefully weigh probative value against prejudicial effect with a heavy thumb on the scale for the defendant's constitutional rights.
