Opinion ID: 2444462
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Sexual Orientation Evidence

Text: [¶ 3] After indictment by the Androscoggin County Grand Jury, the case proceeded to a jury trial. At trial, while presenting no independent evidence regarding the victim's sexual orientation, Rackliffe sought to question the victim in front of the jury regarding his sexual orientation. The court sustained the State's objection to the questions, citing M.R. Evid. 412(b). [¶ 4] Rule 412(b) states: (b) In a criminal case in which a person is accused of sexual misconduct toward a victim the only evidence of the alleged victim's past sexual behavior that may be admitted is the following: (1) [Evidence of source of semen or injury]; or (2) Evidence, other than reputation or opinion evidence, of sexual behavior with the accused offered by the accused on  the issue of whether the alleged victim consented to the sexual behavior with respect to which the accused is charged. (3) Evidence the exclusion of which would violate the constitutional rights of the defendant. [¶ 5] Rackliffe contends that he should have been allowed to question the victim as to his sexual orientation because it is not evidence of the alleged victim's past sexual behavior. [¶ 6] Rackliffe argues that evidence of the victim's sexual orientation was relevant to the issue of whether or not the victim consented to the sexual encounter. Evidence of a victim's sexual orientation, taken alone, is irrelevant to the issue of whether or not a victim consented to a sexual encounter. See M.R. Evid. 401, 402; see also Colorado v. Murphy, 919 P.2d 191, 193-95 (Colo.1996). [¶ 7] Because Rackliffe's proposed questioning of the victim was irrelevant to the issue of consent pursuant to M.R. Evid 412(b)(2), and its exclusion violated no constitutional right as addressed by M.R. Evid. 412(b)(3), it was properly excluded.