United States v. Saunders
736 F. Supp. 698, 1990 WL 61400 (1990)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under Federal Rule of Evidence 412, evidence of a defendant's prior sexual relationship with an alleged rape victim may be admissible on the issue of consent if its probative value outweighs the risk of unfair prejudice. However, evidence of the victim's sexual history with third parties is inadmissible if its only purpose is to show the defendant's belief that the victim was promiscuous, as such a 'state of mind' is legally irrelevant and unfairly prejudicial.
Facts:
- The defendant and the alleged victim knew each other since their teenage years.
- The defendant claimed he had consensual sexual relations with the alleged victim approximately half a dozen times between 1983 and 1987.
- The alleged victim denied ever having consensual sex with the defendant before the night of the alleged incident.
- From 1987 until the alleged incident on February 9, 1990, the parties saw each other only a few times and did not have sexual contact.
- In the week before the alleged incident, an acquaintance of the defendant claimed to have had consensual sex with the alleged victim over a three-day period.
- The acquaintance told the defendant about this alleged sexual activity before the date of the alleged rape.
- On February 9, 1990, a sexual encounter occurred; the defendant alleged it was consensual at his home, while the alleged victim asserted that the defendant forcibly raped her in his car.
Procedural Posture:
- The defendant was charged with rape by indictment in the U.S. District Court.
- The defendant filed a timely pre-trial motion under Federal Rule of Evidence 412(c)(1) seeking permission to offer evidence concerning the alleged victim's past sexual behavior.
- The District Court held an in camera (private) hearing to assess the admissibility of the proposed evidence.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Under Federal Rule of Evidence 412, is evidence of an alleged rape victim's prior consensual sexual relationship with the defendant from three years earlier admissible on the issue of consent, and is evidence of her alleged recent sexual activity with a third party admissible to show the defendant's state of mind?
Opinions:
Majority - Ellis, District Judge
Yes, as to the prior sexual history with the defendant; No, as to the sexual history with the third party. Evidence of a prior sexual relationship between the defendant and the alleged victim is admissible to show consent, but evidence of the victim's sexual history with others is not admissible to show the defendant's belief in her promiscuity. Reasoning for admissibility of prior relations with the defendant: This evidence falls squarely within the Rule 412(b)(2)(B) exception for past sexual behavior with the accused offered on the issue of consent. Although the three-year gap makes it a close question, the court finds the evidence has some probative value because it makes the defendant's consent defense more plausible. The risk of unfair prejudice is low in modern society, and excluding the evidence could violate the defendant's constitutional right to present a relevant and favorable defense. Reasoning for inadmissibility of relations with a third party: This evidence is offered to show the defendant's 'state of mind,' an exception to Rule 412 recognized in the Fourth Circuit. However, it fails under the general relevancy rules (Fed. R. Evid. 403). The defendant's knowledge of the victim's other sexual partners at most suggests he believed she was a 'woman of easy virtue.' This state of mind is legally irrelevant, as the law protects all persons from rape regardless of their sexual history. The evidence is not exculpatory and is highly prejudicial, as it invites the jury to make improper character judgments.
Analysis:
This opinion provides a clear application of the Rule 412 balancing test, particularly regarding the temporal remoteness of a prior relationship between the accused and the victim. It reinforces the core policy of rape shield laws by strictly limiting the 'state of mind' exception, preventing it from becoming a loophole to admit prejudicial character evidence. The court distinguishes between third-party evidence that is genuinely relevant to a disputed issue (e.g., a known preference for 'combative sex' when that is a defense) and evidence that merely serves to paint the victim as promiscuous. This decision guides future courts in balancing a defendant's constitutional rights against the statutory protection of a victim's privacy and right to a fair process.
