Opinion ID: 1948185
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Evidence of Sexual Activity

Text: Forensic examination of the victim's body revealed the presence of semen in the vagina and on the external genitalia. The concentration of sperm was found to be much greater in the vaginal sample than in the external sample. Dr. Ronald Roy, the medical examiner who gathered this evidence with the help of a forensic chemist, testified over the objection of Boobar that these facts suggest that Rebecca Pelkey had sexual intercourse close to the time of her death. [3] Chemical testing neither confirmed nor ruled out that Boobar was the source of the semen. Investigators found six public hairs at the scene, however, and the jury learned that the forensic chemist had determined that two of them were identical in appearance to Boobar's pubic hair. [4] Moreover, during the autopsy, the medical examiner found a pubic hair on the victim's shirt that was also found to be identical in appearance to those of Boobar. The defendant challenges the admission of all evidence relating to sexual contact, arguing that it is irrelevant and excludable pursuant to Rule 403 because the jury was likely to be inflamed by evidence suggesting that a 14-year-old girl had been engaging in sexual relations. We review the trial court's determination of relevancy for clear error. State v. Robinson, 628 A.2d 664, 666 (Me.1993). The similarity of the pubic hairs to those of the defendant makes the sexual contact evidence probative. Moreover, the State's theory was that Boobar's interest in pursuing an intimate relationship with the victim, as suggested by the testimony of the girls who had been riding with Rebecca and Boobar, is consistent with the evidence suggesting that sexual intercourse occurred near the time of the victim's death. The inconclusiveness as to the source of the semen does not render that evidence excludable as irrelevant. Even though the sexual intercourse itself is not an element of the charged crime, the definition of relevancy also includes facts having only an indirect bearing on the issues in the case. Maine Evidence § 401.1 at 4-2. The court's determination that the evidence was relevant is not clearly erroneous. Nor did the trial court abuse its discretion in not excluding the evidence because of its potential to inflame the jury. As the trial court properly noted, the test in a Rule 403 determination is not whether the proffered evidence will prejudice the opponent's case, but whether the evidence will cause unfair prejudice for one of the reasons stated in the Rule. State v. Hurd, 360 A.2d 525, 527 n. 5 (Me.1976). Moreover, the danger of unfair prejudice must substantially outweigh the probative value of the evidence. State v. Trafton, 425 A.2d 1320, 1324 (Me. 1981). Rebecca Pelkey's death, and the circumstances surrounding this tragedy, were shocking and outrageous; but that does not render evidence of those circumstances inadmissible on Rule 403 grounds.