Brief Fact Summary. The defendant, Platero (the “defendant”), was convicted of three counts of sexual assault. The defendant was accused of raping the victim after pulling her and her co-worker over while pretending he was a police officer. The defendant claimed the sex was consensual and she made up the sexual assault allegations to protect her relationship with another individual.
Synopsis of Rule of Law. When a question of relevancy depends on a condition of fact, that question should be determined by the jury.
The filing of a notice of appeal is an event of jurisdictional significance â it confers jurisdiction on the court of appeals and divests the district court of its control over the those aspects of the case involved in the appeal.View Full Point of Law
The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals previously reviewed this case in Platero I. In Platero I, the case was remanded for the district court to determine the factual issue of whether there was a relationship between Ms. Francis and Mr. Laughlin. On remand, the district court determined that no sexual relationship existed between Ms. Francis and Ms. Laughlin.
Issue. Was the defendant denied his constitutional right to a jury trial, and his Sixth Amendment constitutional right to cross-examine and confront Ms. Francis by the refusal of the trial court to submit the issue of whether Ms. Francis and Mr. Laughlin were involved in an affair at the time of the offenses?
Held. Circuit Judge Holloway issued the opinion for the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals, holding that the defendant did present sufficient evidence to allow a jury to find that a relationship existed between Ms. Francis and Mr. Laughlin at time of the incident, and exclusion deprived the defendant of his constitutional right to a jury trial and his right to confront and cross-examine the witness.
Discussion. There was a significant change in Federal Rules of Evidence (“F.R.E.”) Rule 412(b) that occurred after Platero I. The change removed the requirement that the court accept evidence on sexual assault and determine the fact issue. The rule change occurred because the advisory committee recommending rule changes recognized the constitutional concerns regarding the right to a jury trial and to confront the witness.