Opinion ID: 2626189
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Trial Court Violated the Sixth Amendment When it Refused to Let Jones Testify about the Sex Party

Text: ¶ 12 Jones argues that the trial court improperly refused to let him testify or cross-examine witnesses about the events on the night of the alleged sexual encounter. As noted above, the trial court ruled that the evidence was offered for the purpose of attacking the victim's credibility and was barred by the rape shield statute. Jones argues that this ruling violated his Sixth Amendment right to present a defense. We agree. ¶ 13 The right of an accused in a criminal trial to due process is, in essence, the right to a fair opportunity to defend against the State's accusations. Chambers v. Mississippi, 410 U.S. 284, 294, 93 S.Ct. 1038, 35 L.Ed.2d 297 (1973). A defendant's right to an opportunity to be heard in his defense, including the rights to examine witnesses against him and to offer testimony, is basic in our system of jurisprudence. Id. The right to confront and cross-examine adverse witnesses is [also] guaranteed by both the federal and state constitutions. State v. Darden, 145 Wash.2d 612, 620, 41 P.3d 1189 (2002) (citing Washington v. Texas, 388 U.S. 14, 23, 87 S.Ct. 1920, 18 L.Ed.2d 1019 (1967)). ¶ 14 These rights are not absolute, of course. Evidence that a defendant seeks to introduce must be of at least minimal relevance. Id. at 622, 41 P.3d 1189. Defendants have a right to present only relevant evidence, with no constitutional right to present irrelevant evidence. State v. Gregory, 158 Wash.2d 759, 786 n. 6, 147 P.3d 1201 (2006). [I]f relevant, the burden is on the State to show the evidence is so prejudicial as to disrupt the fairness of the fact-finding process at trial. Darden, 145 Wash.2d at 622, 41 P.3d 1189. The State's interest in excluding prejudicial evidence must also be balanced against the defendant's need for the information sought, and relevant information can be withheld only if the State's interest outweighs the defendant's need. Id. We must remember that the integrity of the truthfinding process and [a] defendant's right to a fair trial are important considerations. State v. Hudlow, 99 Wash.2d 1, 14, 659 P.2d 514 (1983). We have therefore noted that for evidence of high probative value it appears no state interest can be compelling enough to preclude its introduction consistent with the Sixth Amendment and Const. art. 1, § 22. Id. at 16, 659 P.2d 514. In Hudlow, we made a clear distinction between evidence of the general promiscuity of a rape victim and evidence that, if excluded, would deprive defendants of the ability to testify to their versions of the incident. Id. at 17-18, 659 P.2d 514. In that case, evidence of past general promiscuity could be excluded, but the clear implication was that evidence of high probative value could not be restricted regardless of how compelling the State's interest may be if doing so would deprive the defendants of the ability to testify to their versions of the incident. Id. at 16-18, 659 P.2d 514. ¶ 15 Jones was prepared to testify that K.D. consented to sex during an all-night drug-induced sex party. The trial court refused to let Jones present this testimony or cross-examine K.D. about the testimony. 2 VRP at 199-200. This is not marginally relevant evidence that a court should balance against the State's interest in excluding the evidence. Instead, it is evidence of extremely high probative value; it is Jones's entire defense. Jones's evidence, if believed, would prove consent and would provide a defense to the charge of second degree rape. Since no State interest can possibly be compelling enough to preclude the introduction of evidence of high probative value, the trial court violated the Sixth Amendment when it barred such evidence. ¶ 16 After the court effectively barred Jones from presenting his defense and after all witnesses had already testified, the trial court attempted to say that Jones had not been precluded from testifying to the issue of consent alone. The trial court's formulation would have allowed testimony of consent, but devoid of any context about how the consent happened or the actual events. 2 VRP at 309-11. These were essential facts of high probative value whose exclusion effectively barred Jones from presenting his defense. The trial court prevented him from presenting a meaningful defense. This violates the Sixth Amendment.