Opinion ID: 1228511
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: evidence of recent sexual intercourse prior to rape

Text: At trial, the prosecution presented evidence to show there was motile sperm present in the vagina of the prosecutrix subsequent to the rape. In connection with this proof, the State moved in limine to prevent the defendant from introducing evidence of any sexual intercourse by the prosecutrix prior to the incident involved. Defendant Pack asserts the trial court's sanction of such restriction was error. He urges that in response to the prosecution's presentation of medical testimony confirming the presence of sperm as evidence of rape, he should have been allowed to present evidence of prior, recent sexual intercourse to raise the possibility that the sperm present was from other than the alleged criminal act. As his offer of proof, appellant points to the medical history taken by Dr. Little, the examining physician, in which the prosecutrix admitted having sexual intercourse between seven and ten days prior to the incident at Bar. Unfortunately, defendant's offer does not go far enough. Defendant's offer lacks a relevant, material connection between the date of the sexual intercourse prior to the alleged rape, and the viability potential for motile sperm. Standing alone, an offer of proof of recent sexual intercourse is not only irrelevant, but prejudicial as well. State v. Cunningham, 97 Idaho 650, 551 P.2d 605 (1976); United States v. Spoonhunter, 10 Cir., 476 F.2d 1050 (1973); State v. Koch, 64 Wyo. 175, 189 P.2d 162 (1948). However, when combined with an offer of medical testimony showing that motile sperm could survive from the prior sexual intercourse to the medical examination after the alleged attack, the admissibility of evidence of recent prior sexual relations would have to be viewed in a different light. In such circumstance, there might well be established a relevant connection between the medical presence of sperm after an alleged rape and prior sexual intercourse, thus necessitating the admission or denial of both proofs. A trial court may reject an offer of proof where the language of the offer is general, vague and not sufficiently specific. Annot., Comment Note  Ruling on offer of proof as error, 89 A.L.R.2d 279, 310, § 13; and 3 Wharton's Criminal Procedure (12th Ed. 1975), § 496. An offer of proof must fully and clearly state the facts which counsel desires to prove, and the manner and evidence by which he proposes to prove it. People v. Jones, 177 Cal. App.2d 420, 2 Cal. Rptr. 305, 308-309; and People v. Asta, 251 Cal. App.2d 64, 59 Cal. Rptr. 206, 214. Furthermore, the offer of proof must specifically indicate the purpose of the testimony. People v. Sperl, 54 Cal. App.3d 640, 126 Cal. Rptr. 907. Finally, the facts contained in an offer of proof must be of sufficient detail to establish the admissibility of the evidence and to demonstrate its relevance and materiality. State v. Umfrees, Mo., 433 S.W.2d 284. Defendant's failure to fully explain why evidence of prior, recent sexual intercourse was relevant, when considered in the context of the medical evidence given and to be given, discloses a failure to comply with these generally accepted principles. See, Connor v. State, Wyo., 537 P.2d 715 (1974) and cases cited therein. [1] A case uniquely in point with what we have said here about the shortcomings of the offer of proof in the instant case is Commonwealth v. Richter, Mass. App., 322 N.E.2d 421. There the defendant was denied the right to inquire of the prosecutrix, on cross-examination, when she had intercourse prior to the alleged offense. Speaking to the effect of defendant's failure to inform the court of the purpose of the question, the court said: ... During the second examination the victim was asked, `... [P]rior to this alleged rape, when was the last time you had intercourse?' An exception was taken to the exclusion of that question. The defendant now argues that the judge's ruling precluded the jury from hearing whether there was another explanation for the presence of sperm in the victim's vagina (shown by a hospital record previously admitted in evidence) and that he was effectively deprived of his rights under the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article 12 of the Declaration of Rights. We need not consider whether there might be merit to the defendant's argument as he never informed the judge of the purpose to be served by an answer to the question. He had at least two opportunities to do so, the first at the time the ruling was made and again at a bench conference held a short time later at which the judge stated why he considered the question to be improper. This case `falls into that relatively rare group of cases where, if the purpose or significance of the question is obscure and the prejudice to the cross-examiner is not clear ... the record must disclose the cross-examiner's reason for seeking an answer to an excluded question.' Breault v. Ford Motor Co., [364 Mass. 352, 353], 305 N.E.2d 824 (1973). See Commonwealth v. Baker, 348 Mass. 60, 63-64, 201 N.E.2d 829 (1964). See also, State v. Cosden, 18 Wash. App. 213, 568 P.2d 802. In the case at Bar, defendant failed to make this connection. Although offering testimony to show recent prior sexual intercourse, defendant made no offer to prove that sperm could remain motile and viable from the time of the prior intercourse to the occasion of the doctor's examination after the attack. Absent such a purpose for the introduction of evidence of prior intercourse, and absent medical evidence that sperm remains motile in the female vagina for this period of time, the offered evidence had no relevance and could only confuse the jury. For the reasons set out above, the trial court's ruling granting the State's motion in limine was proper.