We decline to consider these claims because we believe they would not be decisive to the outcome of this case. Next, defendant claims that the trial court erred in refusing to allow defendant to raise the defenses of consent and duress. With respect to the defense of consent, without determining whether consent is a valid defense to the charges against defendant, we hold that even if the trial court erred in refusing to admit defendant's proffered evidence which allegedly showed that defendant lacked the ability to consent to sexual relations with Turner, the error was harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence presented at trial of defendant's guilt. Nothing about the circumstances surrounding the offenses committed by defendant indicates that defendant did not engage in consensual sexual intercourse with the victim. We are convinced that the outcome of the trial would not have been different had defendant's lack of consent evidence been presented below.
Defendant also claims that the trial court erred in excluding certain evidence of duress.
Specifically, defendant argues that the trial court erred in excluding, on hearsay grounds, certain statements allegedly made by defendant to her roommate at the adult foster care home. On the second day of trial, the prosecution moved to strike defendant's roommate from it's witness list. The prosecutor alleged that the roommate's proposed testimony, consisting of defendant having told the roommate that she had unprotected sex with the victim, that she did not tell him that she was HIV positive because she was afraid he might kill her, and that the victim would not leave her room until they had sex, was essentially exculpatory, self-serving inadmissible hearsay. The trial court found the testimony to be inadmissible. Hearsay is inadmissible as substantive evidence except as the rules of evidence otherwise provide.