Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/529bv.pdf
Page Number: 638

529US2

Unit: $U52

[09-26-01 10:36:40] PAGES PGT: OPIN

Cite as: 529 U. S. 513 (2000)

563

Ginsburg, J., dissenting

use of evidence in a way that systematically disadvantages
one side. Consider, for example, a rule providing that evi-
dence of a rape victim’s sexual relations with persons other
than the accused is admissible to prove consent, or a rule
providing that evidence of a sexual assault defendant’s prior
sexual offenses is inadmissible to show a propensity to com-
mit that type of crime. A statute repealing either of the
above rules would “always run in the prosecution’s favor . . .
[by] mak[ing] it easier to convict the accused.” Ante, at
546.7 Yet no one (until today) has suggested that such a
statute would be ex post facto as applied to offenses com-
mitted before its enactment.

The Court resists the conclusion that Article 38.07 func-
tions as a rule of witness competency by asserting that
“[b]oth before and after the amendment, the victim’s testi-
mony was competent evidence.” Ante, at 544.
In all but
the most technical sense that blanket statement is dubious.
If the victim was 14 years old or older at the time of the
offense (18 or older under the amended statute) and her tes-
timony is unbolstered by corroboration or outcry, the jury
may not credit that testimony in determining whether the
State has met its burden of proof. Such a victim is of course
not literally forbidden from testifying, but that cannot make
the difference for Ex Post Facto Clause purposes between a
sufﬁciency of the evidence rule and a witness competency
rule. Evidence to which the jury is not permitted to assign
weight is, in reality, incompetent evidence.

7 Cf. Fed. Rules Evid. 412(a)(1) (restricting admissibility of “[e]vidence
offered to prove that any alleged victim [of sexual misconduct] engaged in
other sexual behavior”); 412(b)(1)(B) (providing that “evidence of speciﬁc
instances of sexual behavior by the alleged victim with respect to the
person accused” is admissible to prove consent); 413(a) (providing that
“evidence of the defendant’s commission of another offense or offenses of
sexual assault is admissible” in sexual assault cases notwithstanding Rule
404(b)’s general prohibition on the introduction of prior bad acts evidence
“to show action in conformity therewith”).