Opinion ID: 1236025
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Contents of the Laundry Bag.

Text: Appellant argues that the trial court committed prejudicial error in admitting into evidence the contents of a small laundry or ditty bag found in the possession of appellant at the time of the alleged rape. The bag contained two six-foot lengths of rope, a pair of black gloves, a woman's scarf, and five or six pairs of soiled women's panties. After the testimony of the victim and the other material witnesses had been presented, this evidence was offered by the state, together with a knife and toy pistol also found in appellant's possession at the scene, for purposes of demonstrating appellant's state of mind and intent at the time. With reference to the offer of the panties in particular, counsel for the state indicated that my argument is that if he had them with him, that he that particular night had a sexual head-of-steam, so to speak; and that having those, together with the fact that he came prepared with a knife and a gun and a six-foot piece of rope, all add up to  point to what type of a sexual head-of-steam he had. Appellant objected to the relevancy of this evidence, and its potential inflammatory nature, arguing that the state could not sufficiently demonstrate any connection between the fact that appellant had been carrying these undergarments at the time and the likelihood that rape as opposed to consensual intercourse had occurred. [2] In response to this challenge, and in an effort to establish the probative value of this fact, the trial court required the state to substantiate the fact that such a connection existed. To this end the court accepted the state's offer of proof on the matter and allowed it to present  out of the presence of the jury  the expert testimony of Dr. Rollins, a qualified psychiatrist, on the question of the medical import of this evidence. As is admitted by the state in its brief on appeal, the testimony of Dr. Rollins is less than totally dispositive. A review of his lengthy testimony reveals that he was markedly hesitant about many of his conclusions, admitting that absent considerably more information on appellant's psychological makeup he could not state with certainty the exact significance of appellant's carrying of the panties. He nevertheless indicated that as a medical conjecture this circumstance was closely related to some kind of sexual gratification, and probably indicated a form of fetishism. Moreover, a reasonable medical probability existed that the carrying of these objects acted as a kindling or stimulant to sexual conduct. The presence of the panties, however, did not in and of itself automatically indicate a predisposition to effect forcible intercourse, and, assuming that the panties were indicative of fetishism, such fetishism might even be inconsistent with an act of rape. The doctor also admitted that though as a juror he would consider the panties a material and significant fact, there was a risk that this information, considered alone, could be tremendously distorted by the jury. Dr. Rollins testified, however, that there was a distinct medical possibility that one given to fetishism  which is indicative of sexual deficiency or aberration  would feel that sexual gratification with the opposite sex could not be obtained unless he takes it by force. Moreover, considering the totality of the circumstances in the case rather than the presence of the panties in isolation, he said there was probably more than just coincidence between the appellant's carrying of them and a claim of forcible rape. In fact, a significant connection between the two was probable. Ultimately, in response to a specific inquiry propounded by the court, the doctor testified that the fact that appellant was carrying the panties, considered in the light of all the evidence, established a medical probability that it was more likely that rape rather than consensual intercourse occurred, and that he was thereby led to the conclusion that this was a forced relationship. In closing, Dr. Rollins stated that although there was a possibility that the jury could distort the medical significance of this evidence, ... the risk of providing the material to the  to the jury, in my view, should be taken. On the basis of this testimony the trial court concluded that a reasonable connection had been established between the presence of the panties and the commission of the crime charged, and that the evidence had been shown to have sufficient probative value to overcome any possible prejudicial effect from its admission. It thereupon ruled that the evidence was admissible. Appellant here asserts that this ruling was error, arguing both that the evidence was irrelevant and that its inflammatory nature outweighed any probative value it might have. We have stated that [i]n order to be admissible, evidence must be both relevant and material; it must be both probative of the proposition it was used to support, and supportive of an issue in the case... . In order to be relevant, evidence must simply make a proposition more probable than it would be without the evidence. [3] It is also clearly recognized that the determination of relevancy does not depend upon any showing that the particular item of evidence, considered in isolation, furnishes conclusive proof of the ultimate fact to be inferred, [4] but that such evidence need only advance an inquiry. [5] The question of the admissibility of evidence, however, does not stop here, for there are several counter-balancing factors which may require the court to exclude even relevant evidence in borderline cases. [6] Thus, this Court has declared that [t]he court may exclude relevant evidence if it finds that its probative value is outweighed by the risk that it will have a prejudicial effect on the jury, confuse the issues, or mislead the jury... . The court must balance the probative worth against those countervailing harms. [7] The resolution of this question lies within the sound discretion of the trial judge, whose determination should be reversed only upon a showing of a clear abuse of discretion. [8] Appellant argues that the state failed to show any logical connection between the commission of the crime of rape and the possession of the laundry bag and its contents, and that this evidence was therefore irrelevant. Its position is based on what appellant terms the ambiguous and speculative responses of Dr. Rollins, and the fact that he admitted that there were many possible explanations for the presence of these articles in appellant's possession. While one may agree that the testimony presented by the state in its offer of proof was less than conclusive, it cannot be said that no connection was established. A review of the doctor's testimony shows he eventually concluded that as a matter of medical probability such a connection was present. It is not necessary that evidence, to be deemed relevant, do any more than be probative of the proposition it was used to support, making that proposition more probable that it would be without it. Appellant's arguments are aimed only at the weight of the demonstration and do not detract from the fact that a showing of such probability was in fact made. [9] It consequently cannot be said that the trial court clearly erred in its ruling. On the basis of the record before us, it seems difficult to challenge that the evidence was probative and material at least as to the question of appellant's sexual predisposition, an issue which seems clearly material in a rape case such as this. Appellant's objection, moreover, is in many ways similar to one raised in Gordon v. State. [10] There we concluded that the defendant's remarks that he would like to have intercourse with the victim were properly material and relevant to the issue of whether or not the defendant had a pre-existing intent to rape her. Though the connection is more tenuous here, an apparent form of aberrant sexual conduct  though not actually proof of a clear intent to commit rape  has been concluded by a qualified psychiatrist to be more than coincidental with such an act; to be, in fact, of such character as to make rape more probable than consensual sexual activity. We are not persuaded that the court, in making such an exhaustive inquiry into the medical significance of this evidence, erred in ultimately giving credence to this expert opinion. Appellant also contends that the proffered evidence was highly inflammatory, that it could be expected to elicit highly emotional responses from a jury, and that the court consequently erred in not concluding that this inflammatory character outweighed the probative value of the evidence. Appellant does not deny that a balancing test is required here, but draws our attention to several cases which have reached the conclusions which he suggests. [11] Neither appellant's argument nor the case authority which he cites necessitates a reversal of the trial court's ruling that the risk of prejudice was more than balanced by the probative value of the evidence. [12] Moreover, the introduction of the women's panties in evidence was made without comment, and the court subsequently made every effort to see that any potential inflammatory impact was minimized. [13] In view of the discretion granted the court in this matter, and considering all the evidence and the circumstances under which it was presented, we cannot say that any abuse of discretion has been shown. [14] The admission into evidence of the contents of the laundry bag was not error.