Utah Supreme Court Finds Prior Sex Acts Admissible in Rape Case

Last week the Utah Supreme Court handed down its decision in State v. Richardson, a Utah rape case, and found that the prior sex acts of an alleged victim and alleged aggressor can be admissible.  In that case the victim alleged that the defendant had raped her and forced her to have anal sex.  The defendant and alleged victim were boyfriend and girlfriend and had engaged in consensual sexual behavior many times in the past, including anal sex and oral sex.  Richardson was charged with a number of crimes and was ultimately found guilty of vaginal rape and forcible anal sodomy, but was acquitted of aggravated assault, forcible oral sodomy, and domestic violence in the presence of a child.

At trial Richardson sought to admit evidence of the his and the victim’s past sexual relationship, which included consensual anal sex.  The trial court excluded such evidence under Utah Rules of Evidence 412 which prohibits admission of evidence offered to prove that a victim engaged in other sexual behavior or evidence offered to prove a victim‘s sexual predisposition.  Even when such evidence is relevant, courts hold to a general rule of exclusion because of its unusual propensity to unfairly prejudice, inflame, or mislead the jury or to distort the jury‘s deliberative process.  Under this general rule, the trial court held that it was inadmissible.

The Utah Supreme Court, however, reversed this decision.  Rule 412(b) provides an exception to the general rule.  Specific instances of the accuser‘s past sexual behavior can be admitted if it is evidence of specific instances of sexual behavior by the alleged victim with respect to the person accused of the sexual misconduct offered…by the accused to prove consent.  Richardson sought to introduce evidence of his and the victim’s having consensual anal sex in the past to show that they had engaged in consensual anal sex at the time of the alleged misconduct.  The court further ruled that such evidence is relevant, contrary to what the trial court thought, and that there is no heightened rule of relevance for evidence dealing with past sexual behavior.

Send Us A Message

More Posts

When is a protective sweep justified?

What Is A Protective Sweep?

A Protective Sweep is an Exception to the Warrant Rule. Generally speaking, law enforcement officers cannot enter your home to conduct a search without a