Opinion ID: 2396152
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: evidence of prior rapes of the alleged victim

Text: [¶ 21] Although we vacate the judgment of conviction because of the admission into evidence of the mug shot, we discuss two other evidentiary issues raised on appeal because of the likelihood that the issues will reappear on retrial. See State v. Murphy, 496 A.2d 623, 632-33 (1985) (examination of claims of trial error promotes judicial economy when issues are likely to recur at retrial even though judgment is vacated on other grounds). [¶ 22] Almurshidy sought to introduce the testimony of a shelter staff member that the victim told her that she had been raped three times previously. This disclosure was made by the victim to the staff member on August 8, the night before the victim accompanied Almurshidy to Sebago. On August 9, after the victim returned from Sebago, the staff member found her on the fire escape. The staff member asked the victim if everything was okay, and the victim said, this was the fourth time. The staff member, recalling their conversation of the previous day, asked the victim if she had been raped that night, and the victim nodded affirmatively. The trial court excluded the testimony of the prior rapes and the testimony that it was the fourth time. [¶ 23] Almurshidy argued during a hearing on his motion in limine that evidence of three prior rapes in a short period of time was inherently incredible, and the inference to be drawn from such testimony is that the victim could not be believed. The State argued that the testimony of three prior rapes is foreclosed by M.R. Evid. 412. Almurshidy contended that Rule 412 prohibits evidence about the past sexual conduct of a victim, but that rape is violent behavior, not sexual behavior. [3] [¶ 24] There is conflicting authority on whether Rule 412 applies to prior nonconsensual sex, but the majority rule is that it applies. See 23 WRIGHT & GRAHAM, FEDERAL PRACTICE & PROCEDURE: EVIDENCE § 5384, at 545 n. 55 (1980 & Pamph.1999). That interpretation is bolstered by the comment to M.R. Evid. 412, which states that `Sexual behavior' is not specifically defined in the rule, but would include the behavior described by [former] 17-A M.R.S.A. § 251 (B, C, and D),' which defined sexual intercourse, sexual act, and sexual contact. M.R. Evid. 412 advisory committee's note, FIELD & MURRAY, MAINE EVIDENCE 177 (4th ed.1997). We concur with the majority rule that Rule 412 applies to prior rapes of the victim. [¶ 25] Evidence otherwise barred by Rule 412 may be admissible when it is a statement by the victim about past sexual conduct and is relevant as impeachment. See id. Impeachment evidence of specific instances of the conduct of a witness is permitted by M.R. Evid. 608(b)(1) on the cross-examination of the witness when the instances of conduct are probative of truthfulness or untruthfulness and concern the witness' character for truthfulness or untruthfulness. The fact that a person has been raped in the past, even raped three times in a short period of time, is not probative of truthfulness or untruthfulness. [4] The trial court was justified in finding that evidence of three prior rapes was not relevant to whether the victim was raped on August 9, nor was it relevant to the victim's credibility. [5] The trial court did not clearly err or abuse its discretion in disallowing the evidence of the prior rapes.