Every Bundle includes the complete text from each of the titles below:
PLUS: Hundreds of law school topic-related videos from
The Understanding Law Video Lecture Series™:
Choose Your Subscription:
--OR--
Register and Subscribe Now
Every Bundle includes the complete text from each of the titles below:
PLUS: Hundreds of law school topic-related videos from
The Understanding Law Video Lecture Series™:
Choose Your Subscription:
--OR--
Brief Fact Summary. The County Attorney acting on behalf of the State of Arizona brought a special action requesting that the Court reconsider existing law regarding the admissibility of evidence concerning the unchaste character of a complaining witness in a prosecution for rape.
Synopsis of Rule of Law. Evidence of a Complainant’s prior sexual history should not be admitted in rape cases, with the exception of evidence of the Complainant’s reputation as a prostitute and her prior acts of prostitution as well evidence that the Complainant has made prior unsubstantiated rape claims.
If the witness reputation for chastity has not produced this result, then the jury should not be invited to make this deduction.
View Full Point of Law
Issue. Should the substantive use of evidence concerning the Complainant’s prior sexual history be permitted in rape cases?
Held. No. State v. Wood, supra, overruled.
Evidence of a Complainant’s prior sexual history should not be admitted in rape cases, with the exception of evidence of the Complainant’s reputation as a prostitute and her prior acts of prostitution as well evidence that the Complainant has made prior unsubstantiated rape claims.
Where evidence of the Complainant’s reputation as a prostitute and her prior acts of prostitution as well evidence that the Complainant has made prior unsubstantiated rape claims is alleged to be sufficiently probative, the court stated that a separate hearing be held to determine its probative value.
Concurrence. Judge Hays concurs with the result reached by the majority to overrule State v. Wood, however disagrees with the exceptions made by the majority.
Discussion. This case introduces the motivations behind “rape shield” statutes. The idea is not that the Complainant’s sexual history lacks all probative value, but instead that the probative value is outweighed by its prejudicial effect.