Document: 500 U.S. 145 111 S.Ct. 1743 114 L.Ed.2d 205 MICHIGAN, Petitionerv.Nolan K. LUCAS. No. 90-149. Argued March 26, 1991. Decided May 20, Syllabus Michigan's "rape-shield" statute generally prohibits a criminal defendant from introducing at trial evidence of an alleged rape victim's past sexual conduct. However, statutory exception permits to introduce his own conduct with the victim, provided that he files written motion and offer proof within 10 days after is arraigned, whereupon court may hold in camera hearing determine whether proposed admissible. Because respondent Lucas failed give statutorily required notice and, therefore, no admissibility was held, state refused let him introduce, bench on charges assault, prior relationship ex-girlfriend. He convicted sentenced prison, but State Court Appeals reversed, adopting per se rule notice-and-hearing requirement violates Sixth Amendment all cases where it used preclude between victim defendant. Held: 1. Assuming, arguendo, Michigan rape-shield authorizes preclusion as remedy for defendant's failure comply requirement, erred such unconstitutional cases. The not so rigid. serves legitimate interests: protecting victims against surprise, harassment, unnecessary invasions privacy surprise prosecution. This Court's decisions demonstrate interests justify even severe sanction appropriate case. Taylor v. Illinois, 484 400, 413-414, 417, 108 646, 654-655, 656, 98 798; United States Nobles, 422 225, 241, 95 2160, 2171, 45 141. Pp. 149-153. 2. courts must address first instance whether, facts this case, violated Lucas' rights. P. 153. Vacated remanded. O'CONNOR, J., delivered opinion Court, which REHNQUIST, C.J., WHITE, SCALIA, KENNEDY, SOUTER, JJ., joined. BLACKMUN, filed concurring judgment. STEVENS, dissenting opinion, MARSHALL, Don W. Atkins, Detroit, Mich., petitioner. Sol. Gen. Kenneth Starr, Washington, D.C., U.S., amicus curiae, supporting petitioner, by special leave Court. Mark H. Magidson, respondent. Justice O'CONNOR 1 Nolan intention present conduct, trial. Amendment. We consider propriety rule. 2 * Like most States, has designed protect being exposed harassing or irrelevant questions concerning their behavior. See Mich.Comp.Laws § 750.520j (1979).** ** provides: 3 "(1) Evidence specific instances reputation shall be admitted under sections 520b 520g unless only extent judge finds following material fact issue case its inflammatory prejudicial nature does outweigh probative value: 4 "(a) actor. 5 "(b) activity showing source origin semen, pregnancy, disease. 6 "(2) If proposes described subsection (1)(a) (b), arraignment information file proof. order admissible (1). new discovered during course make (b) admissible, (1)." 7 In brief, lists analogous statutes other jurisdictions. Brief Petitioner 38, n. 3. subject two exceptions. One exceptions relevant here. It follows certain procedures. Specifically, who plans "within days" arraigned. "an admissible"—i.e., more than probative. 8 charged counts maintained had knife force Wanda Brown, ex-girlfriend, into apartment, beat her forced engage several nonconsensual sex acts. At time did proof, statute. start trial, however, counsel asked permit defense Brown Lucas, "even though I know goes Statute." App. 4. 9 reviewed then denied motion, stating "[n]one requirements set forth [the statute] have been complied with." Id., 7-8. explained request made law that, result, held A began, consent. credit testimony. found guilty assault prison term 44 180 months. reversed. Relying People Williams, Mich.App. 1, 289 N.W.2d 863 (1980), rev'd grounds, 416 Mich. 25, 330 823 (1982), State's 160 692, 694-695, 408 431, 432 (1987). quoted language Williams " 'serve[s] useful purpose' therefore insufficient interference Mich.App., 695, N.W.2d, 432, quoting supra, 10, 867. surmised purpose 'to allow prosecution investigate validity claim better prepare combat trial.' 694, 866. concluded, rationale 'loses logical underpinnings' when applied because 'the very . personal parties' impossible investigate. 866-867. 11 Appeals, relying thus adopted broad class Under rule, would unable deliberate ploy delay prosecution, harass victim. granted certiorari, 498 ----, 507, 112 520 (1990), Appeals' consistent our jurisprudence. II 12 silent consequences requirement. assumed, without explanation, authorized remedy. correct, unquestionably implicates To operates prevent presenting evidence, ability confront adverse witnesses diminished. necessarily render unconstitutional. "[T]he right testimony limitation. 'may, cases, bow accommodate process.' Rock Arkansas, 483 44, 55, 107 2704, 2711, 97 37 (1987), Chambers Mississippi, 410 284, 295, 93 1038, 1045, 35 297 (1973). explained, example, "trial judges retain wide latitude" limit reasonably cross-examine witness "based concerns about, among things, prejudice, confusion issues, witness' safety, interrogation repetitive marginally relevant." Delaware Van Arsdall, 475 673, 679, 106 1431, 1435, 89 674 (1986). 13 deny support represents valid legislative determination deserve heightened protection privacy. also protects Contrary statement defendant, 867, prosecutor interview persons parties otherwise actually existed. When conceded, procedure allows advance "is case" "its outweigh[s] value." 750.520j(1) (1979). 14 upheld settings. Florida, 399 78, 90 1893, 26 446 (1970), Florida notify any alibi intended call. observed "by itself way affected defendant's] crucial decision call witnesses. most, compelled defendant] accelerate timing disclosure, forcing divulge earlier date [he] planned trial." 85, S.Ct., 1898. Accelerating disclosure violate Constitution, "a poker game players enjoy absolute always conceal cards until played." 82, 1896. subsequent decision, salutary development which, increasing available both parties, enhances fairness adversary system." Wardius Oregon, 412 470, 474, 2208, 2211, 82 15 mean, course, pass constitutional muster. Restrictions rights "may arbitrary disproportionate purposes they are serve." 56, 2711. inconceivable demands arraignment, overly restrictive. concedes period shortest Nation. 38. require us decide, brief "arbitrary disproportionate" interests. insofar precluded expressed view brevity period, neither do we. 16 sole question presented review served can ever precluding answer no; prohibiting kind evidence. ruling cannot squared 17 indicated may, circumstances, fails discovery 141 (1975), wished put stand investigator testify about statements investigation, District submit copy investigator's report testifying, "preclusion entirely proper method assuring compliance order." 2171. Rejecting claim, "[t]he confer free adversarial Ibid. 18 Even telling 798 (1988). There, procedural failing identify particular response pretrial request. sanctioned violation refusing undisclosed testify. rejected argument Compulsory Process Clause Amendment, never permissible violation." 414, 655 (emphasis original). 19 every violated. Rather, we acknowledged alternative sanctions "adequate cases." 413, 655. stated explicitly, however there could circumstances justified less penalty "would perpetuate rather prejudice harm process." Taylor, Taylor's amounted "willful misconduct" obtain tactical advantage." 656. Based these findings, determined "[r]egardless avoided" lesser penalty, "the severest [wa]s appropriate." 20 light undue delay. Failure some preclusion. 21 Recognizing decisions, spends little trying defend ruling. argues primarily here were nearly egregious those Taylor. insists surprised learn Lucas—she preliminary hearing. Additionally, contends negligent, willful. 22 express whose here, abused discretion before it. That judgment error. 23 vacated remanded further proceedings inconsistent opinion. 24 ordered. 25 concur write separately dissented (1988), majority reciprocal-discovery 27 separate dissent id., 438, 667-68, specifically reserved type case—whether might noncompliance evidence—based my belief embody differ substantially truth-seeking interest underlying view, if implemented unduly distorting process, prohibit sanction's use. 28 represents, deny, privacy." Ante, 150. addition, minimize providing opportunity proffered Finally, notice-of-alibi attempt evidence—evidence conduct—with respect credibility determinations likely dispositive, (or perhaps compel) gather preserve soon offense, memories fresh vivid. seems clear interests, unlike truthseeking, advanced imposition preclusion, constitute comply. 29 Of full truthful critical remains paramount concern criminal-trial will "disproportionate is] Nonetheless, agree preclusion." 30 whom MARSHALL joins, dissenting. 31 entered affirm. court's precisely not, sufficient reason either granting certiorari requiring another sit, editorial board review, appellate court. Our task limited reviewing "judgments, opinions." Chevron U.S.A. Inc. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 837, 842, 104 2778, 2781, 81 694 (1984); see Black Cutter Laboratories, 351 292, 297-298, 76 824, 827, 100 L.Ed. 1188 (1956); K Mart Corp. Cartier, Inc, 485 176, 185, 950, 957, 99 151 32 am sure "per describes ante, 146, 149, 151, 152. curiam, uses word se," mentions Federal Constitution,1 indeed, cites federal simply holds potentially reliance provision requires trial.2 intends relations information. Ann. (1991). As petitioner acknowledge, "Michigan appears 'within .' Other Government various times Ibid.; Respondent 29, 24. 33 Although explicitly rely strict ("10 ") statute, ten-day provision" (1987); 11, 863, 867 (1982). 10-day possibly majority's restrictive, use clearly provides adequate holding discusses second theory fully first, well. 34 read well relationship, raises reasoned situation, play role; rather, become contest word, reaching based upon assessment each, left jury. 9, extensively issue3 need additional develop information,4 'in situation serve purpose.' (quoting 867). adopts, assumes unnecessarily harsh violating statute's particularly raising consent, reasonable, (1988).5 appropriate, "plain fits category willful misconduct 657. strong believe facilitate fabrication false testimony, general fashioned. find nothing exceptional 416-417, 656-57 (preclusion product misconduct, purposely advantage). precise should been, went far adopt straw man decided knock down today. 36 convinced correctly unique unconstitutional, affirm refer confrontation cross-examination. 5, 864. part: "In prosecutions, accused confronted him." Const., Amdt. 6. cross-examination derived Amendment's guaranteeing him. applicable States. Pointer Texas, 380 85 1065, 923 (1965). summarized portion opinion: "At moved introduction complainant. solely shield MCL 750.520j; MSA 28.788(10), court, motion. legal 9-11; NW2d [330 823] complainant defendant." (1987) added). lengthy excerpt concluding sentence: "This loses previous excluded adduced careful distinguish four defendants sought one consent defendants. noted Supreme "this premise untenable." 432. like "sexual third persons." 866; "It extreme Rayford, Illinois Appellate explained: 'The exclusion drastic measure; civil limits application flagrant violations, uncooperative party demonstrates "deliberate contumacious unwarranted disregard authority." (Schwartz Moats, Ill.App.3d 596, 599, 277 N.E.2d 529, 531; [1971] Department Transportation Mainline Center, 38 538, 347 837 [1976].) reasons restricting situations compelling defendants, due process permitted defense. (Washington 388 [87 1920, 1019 (1967) ]. .) "Few fundamental defense." (Chambers 302. [93 1049, (1973) ] 43 [283], 286-287 [1 Ill.Dec. 941, 944], 356 [1274], 1277 [1976]." [108 657, 23].

Category: 0