Opinion ID: 2624988
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Did the error prejudice Hess?

Text: We will not reverse a conviction for an evidentiary error if the error is harmless. [50] In Worthy v. State [51] the superior court erred in excluding evidence under Alaska Evidence Rule 403. The excluded evidence challenged the truth of the complaining witness's allegation that another man had raped her on an earlier occasion. [52] We reversed Worthy's conviction because the state made the complainant's testimony about the prior rape an integral part of its case against Worthy and because the excluded testimony might have substantially affected the jury's verdict. [53] Likewise, the state made A.R.'s testimony an integral part of its case against Hess in the H.W. case. In its opening argument the state asserted: [I]n rebuttal testimony a witness will be testifying, a young girl by the name of [A.R.]. She will be testifying about a non-consensual sexual encounter that she had with Mr. Hess in June of 1994 and how she too was in a situation where she was begging and crying for Ralph Hess not to have sex with her and that those cries, as [H.W.'s] cries, were ignored. .... The only issue before you can be summed up in one word, consent. The state referred to A.R.'s testimony three times in its closing argument: And last but certainly not least, ladies and gentlemen, don't forget the testimony of [A.R.] when you're thinking about this man's ability to disregard completely what a woman is trying to communicate to him. [A.R.] testified clearly about what she went through at the hands of Ralph Hess. Trying to pull her shorts up, trying to cry, trying to tell him to stop, begging him to stop, going to a bedroom to get away from him. Trying to hold her legs together while he's trying to pry them apart. With him trying to stick his penis into her vagina while she's squirming and trying to get away from him. None of this, ladies and gentlemen, mean[s] a thing to this man. This man regards the consent of the women he has sex with as ... completely irrelevant. When you're thinking about this, think about [A.R.]. .... Mr. Holmes asked you to ignore [A.R.] Well he would like to have you ignore [A.R.], Ralph Hess would like to have you ignore [A.R.]. But you can't ignore [A.R.] because [A.R.] corroborates what [H.W.] told you about what happened in that Bronco and how Ralph Hess recklessly disregarded her lack of consent. [The defendant's attorney] says we don't have other evidence ... of what happened. Wrong, we have direct evidence because [A.R.] provides that direct evidence of how Mr. Hess handles himself in situations similar to that in which [H.W.] found herself on the morning of October 9th, 1994. Recklessly disregards lack of consent. That's what A.R. told you, that's direct evidence that you are entitled to rely upon and I urge you to rely on it in this case. .... [Hess is] [s]omeone we know [who] will come in and recklessly disregard a woman's lack of consent. Use of force to remove clothes, spread legs, to insert his penis into the vagina of unfortunate victims who he's raped. The state relied on A.R.'s testimony and made it an important part of its case at the second trial. The state argued that the only issue was H.W.'s lack of consent; to establish Hess's reckless disregard for H.W.'s lack of consent, the state relied on A.R.'s testimony that A.R. did not consent. And it urged the jury to do the same. But if the second jury had known that the first jury had reasonable doubt about whether Hess recklessly disregarded A.R.'s lack of consent or whether A.R. did not consent, the second jury might also have had reasonable doubt about whether Hess recklessly disregarded H.W.'s wishes. The error may have substantially affected the verdict. Because we cannot say that the error was harmless, exclusion requires reversal of Hess's conviction and remand for retrial. [54]