Opinion ID: 1720086
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The applicability of M.R.E. 412 under these circumstances.

Text: M.R.E. 412 controls over any statutory evidence rules, rendering them unenforceable. Hall v. State, 539 So.2d 1338, 1340 (Miss. 1989). Although neither party relied upon M.R.E. 412 at trial, instead utilizing Miss. Code Ann. § 97-3-68 (1994 rev.), both parties agree that M.R.E. 412 is the proper standard. M.R.E. 412 provides, in pertinent portions: RULE 412. SEX OFFENSE CASES; RELEVANCE OF VICTIM'S PAST BEHAVIOR (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, in a criminal case in which a person is accused of a sexual offense against another person, reputation or opinion evidence of the past sexual behavior of an alleged victim of such sexual offense is not admissible. (b) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, in a criminal case in which a person is accused of a sexual offense against another person, evidence of a victim's past sexual behavior other than reputation or opinion evidence is also not admissible, unless such evidence other than reputation or opinion evidence is: (1) Admitted in accordance with subdivisions (c)(1) and (c)(2) hereof and is constitutionally required to be admitted; or (2) Admitted in accordance with subdivision (c) hereof and is evidence of (A) Past sexual behavior with persons other than the accused, offered by the accused upon the issue of whether the accused was or was not, with respect to the alleged victim, the source of semen, pregnancy, disease, or injury; or ... . (c) (1) If the person accused of committing a sexual offense intends to offer under subdivision (b) evidence of specific instances of the alleged victim's past sexual behavior or evidence of past false allegations made by the alleged victim, the accused shall make a written motion to offer such evidence not later than fifteen days before the date on which the trial in which such evidence is to be offered is scheduled to begin, except that the court may allow the motion to be made at a later date, including during trial, if the court determines either that the evidence is newly discovered and could not have been obtained earlier through the exercise of due diligence or that the issue to which such evidence relates has newly arisen in the case. Any motion made under this paragraph shall be served on all other parties and on the alleged victim. ... . (d) For purposes of this rule, the term past sexual behavior means sexual behavior other than the sexual behavior with respect to which the sexual offense is alleged. [emphasis added]. The first question is whether M.R.E. 412(b) applies. M.R.E. 412(b)(2)(A) requires that a defendant who wishes to introduce evidence of past sexual behavior with persons other than the accused, offered by the accused upon the issue of whether the accused was or was not, with respect to the alleged victim, the source of semen, pregnancy, disease, or injury. M.R.E. 412(b)(2)(A). The issue is whether M.R.E. 412(b)(2)(A) applies to exclude the testimony of Jackie Davis and Johnny Martone. M.R.E. 412(d) answers the question in this case. M.R.E. 412(d) exempts from the bar against evidence of past sexual behavior sexual behavior with respect to which the sexual offense is alleged. M.R.E. 412(d); see also Goodson v. State, 566 So.2d 1142, 1150 (Miss. 1990) (plurality). Other courts have interpreted this provision in their own rules to mean that evidence pertaining to the sexual act in question, such as identity, is outside the scope of the rape shield rule. United States v. Torres, 937 F.2d 1469, 1472 (9th Cir.1991), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 1037, 112 S.Ct. 886, 116 L.Ed.2d 789 (1992); State v. Gettier, 438 N.W.2d 1, 2-3 (Iowa 1989) (asserting despite Rule 412's inapplicability, trial court could still exclude evidence as more prejudicial than probative). Furthermore, courts have stated that the rape shield rule's protections are inapplicable, where [t]he act offered in explanation was not a prior separate incident but an alternative account of the events of that evening offered to counter the prosecution's medical testimony. Commonwealth v. Majorana, 503 Pa. 602, 470 A.2d 80, 85 (1983). The Majorana Court explained that the defendant must have the opportunity to explain the presence of semen and sperm in the victim's body. 470 A.2d at 85. That court defended its holding on the ground that to do otherwise would deny appellant the chance to defend by presenting a denial of the prosecution's case. Id.; see Rock v. Arkansas, 483 U.S. 44, 56, 107 S.Ct. 2704, 2711-12, 97 L.Ed.2d 37 (1987); see generally State v. Reinart, 440 N.W.2d 503, 506 (N.D. 1989). The Majorana Court directly limited the introduction of such evidence to a time frame close enough in time to the act with which he is charged that it is relevant to explain the presence of objective signs of intercourse. 470 A.2d at 84. For this reason, two cases, which hold that general evidence of chastity is admissible, while specific evidence relating to an alternative source of injury is not, are overruled by adoption of the Mississippi Rules of Evidence. See Shay v. State, 229 Miss. 186, 192-93, 90 So.2d 209, 211 (1956); Barnes v. State, 164 Miss. 126, 136, 143 So. 475, 477 (1932).