Opinion ID: 870427
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Evidence of Sexual Contacts in South Dakota Was Probative of Opportunity

Text: The State's evidence [18] established that the first charged incidents of sexual assault in Hawai`i occurred while SI, LI and Behrendt were living at the Kamani Trees house with SI's family. By that time, Behrendt and SI had been engaging in sexual intercourse for at least two years. The first sexual contact in Hawai`i occurred one night while SI was sleeping in the same bed with LI and Behrendt, and Behrendt turned SI on her side and had vaginal intercourse with her from behind. They continued to have sexual intercourse about three to five times a month while living at that house. The prior sexual contacts between SI and Behrendt in South Dakota were relevant to establish Behrendt's opportunity to engage in the sexual contacts in Hawaii without being detected. The evidence established how the relationship between Behrendt and SI had developed so that the sexual contacts in Kona could take place without SI reporting them. Absent that evidence, it would be implausible that Behrendt could suddenly engage in sexual intercourse with SI in a house they shared with her family while SI's sister slept in the same bed, without SI reporting it. Specifically, the evidence from South Dakota established that Behrendt had initially explored SI's willingness to engage in sexual conduct by first suggesting that they take showers together, then having her touch his penis in the shower, followed by him touching her genitalia, and then progressing to sexual intercourse. The State's expert witness on child sexual abuse, Dr. Bivens, testified about a study involving interviews of approximately thirty child sexual offenders, who identified seduction and testing as a method they used to accomplish the abuse: ... Seduction and testing involves taking normal adult-child touch, which would be a hug, a kiss, that sort of affectionate touching, which I hope is happening between adults and children, and slowly incorporating sexual touch into. The classic example that's in the book is watching television, snuggling on the couch. And what the abuser will do is touch more frequently in more sexual ways. Now that's the seduction part. The testing part is that all the molesters reported that they were waiting and monitoring the reaction of the child. And what they reported was that they said that if the child was going to startle or somehow react in a way that let them know that they were going to get into trouble for it that they would have backed off completely. The evidence also established that Behrendt developed a relationship of trust and control with SI in South Dakota. Behrendt was SI's primary caretaker when SI's sister was working, bought her things, and took her side when she had disagreements with her sister. [19] He assured her that their sexual touching was okay and that her sister said it was okay for them to shower together. Also, he showed her a pornographic videotape when they were alone together. [20] After their relationship became sexual, SI testified that at first she was confused and occasionally acted rude to Behrendt to push[] him off. On those occasions, he would discipline her by putting her nose on the wall for a few minutes, or he and LI would threaten to send her back to Hawai`i. [21] Behrendt also repeatedly told SI that she could not tell about what was happening or he would be separated from her and would go to jail. SI testified that by the time that SI, her sister and Behrendt returned to Kona, she had grown close to Behrendt and started liking him because he was there for her as a friend: ... I told him everything. [He] [b]ought me stuff. If anytime there was an argument, like an argument between me and my sister or something, it seems like he stuck up for me. Or even when we got back to my parents, my parents  all of us, we would argue about something or just have a disagreement, and he was always sticking up for me, like he was there for me. In sum, by the time that SI returned to Hawai`i, SI had become acclimated to the sexual contact. Her relationship with Behrendt had developed from the early stages when she would occasionally act rudely and push him off, to the point where she had grown close to him and started liking him, because he was there for me. Thus, when Behrendt had sex with SI at Kamani Trees while her sister slept in the same bed, it was another contact in an established sexual relationship. SI's failure to cry out or tell anyone what had occurred that night and on the subsequent occasions of sexual contact in Hawai`i was consistent with the relationship that had been established in South Dakota. Thus, the evidence of the sexual contacts in South Dakota was relevant to show Behrendt's opportunity to commit the charged sexual assaults in Hawai`i without being detected. There are no Hawai`i cases involving child sexual abuse that address the admissibility of the defendant's prior sexual interaction with the complaining witness. However, cases from other jurisdictions have held that such evidence is admissible under rules comparable to HRE Rule 404(b). See, e.g., State v. Cox, 169 P.3d 806, 813-14 (Utah Ct.App. 2007) (holding that evidence of an uncharged incident of sexual conduct was admissible to demonstrate an ongoing pattern of behavior by the defendant toward one particular victim) (citing State v. Reed, 8 P.3d 1025, 1030-32 (Utah 2000) (concluding that evidence of specific uncharged instances of the defendant's treatment of the child demonstrated the manner in which [the defendant] intensely pursued the victim over a three-and-a-half year period in order to gain opportunity to commit the unlawful sexual acts)); State v. Baptista, 894 A.2d 911, 915-16 (R.I.2006) (holding that evidence of uncharged sexual assaults against defendant's step-daughter over a period of two and a half years was admissible to show the defendant's intent and lewd disposition toward the particular child victim); State v. Paul, 769 N.W.2d 416, 425-26 (N.D.2009) (approving trial court's admission of evidence that defendant made complaining witness watch nasty movies and engaged in sexual conduct with her in another state prior to the charged conduct as probative of plan and preparation). [22] In sum, the State clearly articulated a legitimate purpose for the evidence, i.e., establishing Behrendt's opportunity to commit the offenses in Hawai`i without being detected. Both the testimony of SI and the testimony of Dr. Bivens provided the evidentiary foundation for that non-character use of the evidence. Thus, this is not a situation where the state offered a pretextual reason for the admission of the evidence, but in fact appeared to be using it to establish the bad character of the defendant. Cf. Fetelee, 117 Hawai`i at 82-85, 175 P.3d at 738-741 (in case of attempted murder, attempted assault and theft, concluding that evidence of an unrelated prior incident where the defendant entered his neighbor's apartment and punched a visitor would likely cause the jury to infer[] that [the defendant] was a violent person of bad character and was therefore not admissible under HRE 404(b)). Accordingly, we conclude that the evidence of sexual contacts in South Dakota was relevant to establish opportunity. [23]