Past Sex Crimes May Be Admitted Against A Criminal Defendant
When a criminal defendant is facing allegations of rape, sexual assault, or other sexual crimes, the prosecutor and his investigators will do everything they can to find out if the defendant has any past convictions or even allegations of other sexual misconduct. This information very often times comes from ex-spouses or former sexual partners.
Upon discovering any such past bad acts, the prosecutor will do everything possible to be able to admit it into evidence at trial, because prosecutors know that if the jury can see that the defendant has been accused before, then he must have done it this time. That logic, however, is exactly what the Utah Rules of Evidence seek to avoid.
Rule 404(b) Prohibits Using Past Sexual Misconduct…With Exceptions
Rule 404(b) of the Utah Rules of Evidence prohibits prosecutors from using evidence of past sexual misconduct “…to prove a person’s character in order to show that on a particular occasion the person acted in conformity with the character.” This seems rather straight forward, but the rule continues on with the exceptions for allowing such evidence to prove “…motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, absence of mistake, or lack of accident.”
Without fail, prosecutors will argue that the past allegation of sexual misconduct is going to be used to show that the defendant did this by lack of accident, without mistake, and it shows he had a motive to do it again.
Rule 403 Permits Excluding Even Relevant Evidence
Even if the prosecutor tries to categorize the past sex crime under one of the 404(b) exceptions, he has to be able to show that there is a proper non-character purpose for introducing the evidence. That is hard to do. Further, the defendant is protected by Rule 403, which prohibits the use of even relevant evidence if its relevance is “substantially outweighed by a danger of…unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the jury, undue delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence.”
Fortunately, using Rule 403, several Utah appellate courts have made it more difficult for prosecutors to get this type of evidence admitted under the 404(b) exceptions. That is because it is difficult for prosecutors to give a logical and valid reason why evidence of past sexual misconduct would not create an unfair prejudice against the defendant. In other words, what would be the proper non-character purpose of the evidence?
At Salcido Law Firm we have some of the most experienced defense attorneys in Utah for sexual misconduct charges and we know how to protect our clients against the State’s attempts to confuse juries by introducing evidence of past sexual misconduct. Get Protected! by giving us a call today at 801-413-1753.