Opinion ID: 1784340
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Second Alleged Error

Text: Later in the trial, Holland asked Boyer during cross-examination whether Krystal and her former boyfriend, Bryan Anderson, had had sexual relations ... on a regular basis. The State objected on the basis of Miss.R.Evid. 412. Under Rule 412, evidence of the past sexual behavior of an alleged victim is not admissible in a criminal case in which a person is accused of a sexual assault. The trial judge sustained the objection. Holland now questions this decision. Vol. X at 1608-09. Holland contends that Rule 412 has nothing to do with relevancy because it was designed [solely] to protect the privacy of a [ living ] victim  not a dead victim like Krystal. Appellant's Brief at 53-54 (citing Rule 412's comment (a)). Common sense dictates that Holland's contention is meritless. At the very least, Holland needs to look at the title of the rule: Sex Offense Cases; Relevance of Victim's Past Behavior. Holland does nonetheless contend that the testimony about Krystal's past sexual behavior is relevant: Anderson certainly could have had sex with [Krystal] before Boyer saw her at the arcade on the night of the murder. Id. at 54. Maybe so. But as the State aptly notes, Holland is merely grasping at straws. Appellee's Brief at 39. Whether Krystal and a former boyfriend regularly engaged in sexual relations is a frivolous inquiry having no relevance to the issue of Holland's guilt. See MISS.R.EVID. 401-03. In sum, the judge properly sustained the State's objection to Holland's question about Krystal's past sexual behavior.