Opinion ID: 1355558
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: evidence of plaintiff's prior sexual conduct

Text: Birkner argues that cross-examination concerning her sexual relationships with her ex-husband and her former boy friend and sexual abuse inflicted upon her as a child by her father was irrelevant and prejudicial. Since Birkner did not object at trial to the questions about her sexual relations with her father, the objections were waived, and we will not address the issue. Utah R.Evid. 103(a)(1). We do note, however, that it was Birkner herself who introduced the evidence of her father's sexual abuse, apparently to establish her own mental infirmities. The defense was clearly entitled to cross-examine her about the fact, the nature, and the effect of her father's abuse. Birkner also asserts that defense counsel improperly cross-examined her concerning her sexual relations with prior male friends. However, the record shows that the trial judge, in fact, sustained her objections to those questions. Only the defendant's questions as to her sexual relations with her former spouse were permitted over the plaintiff's objections. Specifically, the plaintiff was asked the following: Q. Did you ever engage in sexual relations with Mr. Birkner while you were married to him? ... . A. Yes. I did. Q. Did Mr. Birkner ever kiss you? A. Yes. He did. Q. And did he ever touch your breast while you were  Plaintiff's counsel then objected and was overruled. It is difficult to understand why Birkner contends that this evidence was improper. While such evidence may bruise a person's sensibilities, it was not a gratuitous diversion made for the sole purpose of embarrasing her. The jury was entitled to consider Birkner's prior experience in assessing damages. Flowers was entitled to try to demonstrate that Birkner's condition was not worsened by her sexual relations with Flowers. Reversed as to the trial court's judgment imposing liability on the County for the 50 percent comparative negligence of employee Flowers, and remanded for entry of judgment against Flowers consistent with this opinion. Affirmed as to the County's 40 percent comparative negligence liability for negligent supervision of Flowers and as to Birkner's 10 percent comparative negligence. HALL, C.J., HOWE, Associate C.J., DURHAM and ZIMMERMAN, JJ., concur.