United States v. Knox
1994 WL 643746, 41 M.J. 28, 1994 CMA LEXIS 122 (1994)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under Military Rule of Evidence 412, evidence of a rape victim’s past sexual behavior or reputation for promiscuity is inadmissible to prove consent, unless such evidence is so relevant to a specific defense that its exclusion would violate the accused's constitutional rights.
Facts:
- Appellant, Theresa, and Sergeant Castonguay were coworkers at Kadena Air Base. Theresa and Castonguay were in a sexual relationship.
- On April 28, 1989, the three were drinking in appellant's room. Appellant touched Theresa's leg, and she told him to stop.
- Later that evening, Theresa and Castonguay were on appellant's bed. Theresa told appellant he could sleep in her room.
- Theresa returned to the bed with Castonguay, undressed, and engaged in kissing and hugging with him before falling asleep.
- Theresa testified she awoke to find appellant having intercourse with her. She initially thought it was Castonguay, but upon realizing it was appellant, she began crying and told him to leave.
- Appellant testified that he returned to his room to find Theresa and Castonguay engaged in oral sex and that he interpreted her 'suggestive looks and motions' as an invitation to join them.
- Following the incident, Theresa heard appellant say statements such as 'Lu, we f[_]ed up' and 'Lu, I didn’t know that she didn’t know,' which appellant denied saying.
- Appellant sought to introduce evidence that Theresa had a reputation for being a 'bimbo,' sexually promiscuous, and had engaged in public sex acts with others in the past.
Procedural Posture:
- Appellant was tried by a general court-martial composed of officer and enlisted members.
- The court-martial convicted appellant of rape and conspiracy to commit rape.
- The convening authority approved the sentence.
- Appellant appealed his conviction to the United States Air Force Court of Military Review.
- The Court of Military Review affirmed the conviction and sentence.
- The United States Court of Military Appeals granted review of the evidentiary issue.
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 Military Rule of Evidence 412 permit an accused in a nonconsensual sexual offense case to introduce evidence of the victim's past sexual behavior and reputation for promiscuity to support his defense of consent or mistake-of-fact as to consent?
Opinions:
Majority - Per Curiam
No. Military Rule of Evidence 412 generally prohibits the admission of a victim's past sexual behavior or reputation to prove consent. The court reasoned that the evidence appellant sought to introduce was precisely the kind of general character attack that Mil.R.Evid. 412 is designed to prevent. Appellant's defense was not based on a reasonable belief of consent derived from Theresa's reputation, but on his claim that she specifically and actively invited him to join an ongoing sexual encounter. Using her reputation to argue she was more likely to participate in a threesome is an impermissible propensity argument. Furthermore, the appellant was not denied his constitutional right to present a defense, as he was permitted to testify about his own prior interactions with Theresa, including their sexual banter.
Analysis:
This case reinforces the strength of military 'rape shield' laws, affirming that a victim's sexual past is generally irrelevant and prejudicial. The court clarifies that the 'constitutionally required' exception to the rule is narrow and does not permit the introduction of reputation evidence to make a general propensity argument about consent. By distinguishing between evidence of the defendant's direct experiences with the victim and inadmissible evidence of the victim's reputation or acts with third parties, the decision helps keep the trial's focus on the specific events in question, rather than putting the victim's character on trial.
