Opinion ID: 2621432
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Robin Sehmel's Prior Prostitution is Relevant

Text: ś 214 Evidence of prostitution was essential to prove consent which, if established, would negate an element of the crime of rape-forcible compulsion. The evidence was also essential to establish Sehmel's motive to lie or falsely accuse. However, that evidence which could have raised a reasonable doubt was withheld from the jury. ś 215 While the jury may have believed it is exceedingly unlikely that a woman who is not a prostitute would engage in the described sexual conduct with a stranger absent forcible compulsion, the excluded evidence demonstrates that the complaining witness had willingly participated in the exact same conduct with strangers on numerous occasions in the past. This evidence puts the claim in an entirely new light, a light not available to the jury to illuminate the evidence. ś 216 Denied his right to introduce evidence of prior prostitution history, Gregory was not only deprived of evidence to support his defense theory, and his constitutional right to defend himself, but the State then used the absence of this relevant evidence of prostitution to its advantage. For example the State asked Sehmel questions on direct examination about her counseling at a sexual assault center and how she felt about the incident. ś 217 In closing argument the State also effectively used the absence of this evidence. For example the prosecutor faulted the defense for calling her a prostitute as a wanton insult: Look at the tone that was taken with her in cross-examination. Look at the attempts to twist what she said. Look at the accusations made of her. He called her a prostitute. She denied it. 18 RP at 2915. Then later, He has got to make Robin look like a prostitute, got to make her look bad. 18 RP at 2923. And again: So now he says, I did have vaginal sex with her. And not only was it consensual, she is a prostitute, a little extra insult to injury. . . . 18 RP at 2923-24.