Opinion ID: 2225342
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: General Inadmissibility under Wisconsin's Rape Shield Law

Text: ¶ 39 Wisconsin's rape shield law, Wis. Stat. § 972.11(2), [14] generally prohibits a defendant like Carter from introducing evidence concerning the alleged victim's prior sexual conduct. Our legislature enacted the rape shield law to counteract outdated beliefs that a complainant's sexual past could shed light on the truthfulness of the sexual assault allegations. State v. Dunlap, 2002 WI 19, ¶ 19, 250 Wis.2d 466, 640 N.W.2d 112 (citing Michael R.B. v. State, 175 Wis.2d 713, 727, 499 N.W.2d 641 (1993)). The law protect[s] victims of sexual assault from themselves becoming the focus of scrutiny during trial, Michael R.B., 175 Wis.2d at 727, 499 N.W.2d 641, as it is generally recognized that evidence of the victim's prior sexual conduct is `irrelevant or, if relevant, substantially outweighed by its prejudicial effect,' State v. Dodson, 219 Wis.2d 65, 70, 580 N.W.2d 181 (1998) (quoting Pulizzano, 155 Wis.2d at 644, 456 N.W.2d 325). ¶ 40 Evidence that Cassandra may have had previous sexual contact with her cousin clearly falls under the rape shield law's definition of sexual conduct. See Wis. Stat. § 972.11(2)(a). Accordingly, unless Carter can demonstrate that such evidence is statutorily or judicially excepted from the rape shield law, the evidence is inadmissible. [15]