Opinion ID: 2621432
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Robin Sehmel's Prostitution History

Text: ś 203 On August 8, 2001 defense counsel interviewed Sehmel. However, before the interview started the prosecutor told Sehmel that she did not have to answer any questions if she did not wish to. The State also prevented defense counsel from asking her about her criminal history, among other things. ś 204 Despite the inability to question Sehmel about her prior prostitution activities during the first interview, Gregory made an offer of proof based on independent investigation. ś 205 The Pierce County Law Enforcement Support Agency (LESA) listed numerous criminal matters involving aliases attributed to Robin Sehmel. In addition, LESA provided 10 pages of arrest and conviction reports regarding Sehmel. Included in the reports were records of a July 17, 1992 conviction for sexual misconduct in Tacoma Municipal Court; a March 28, 1995 conviction for prostitution in Tacoma Municipal Court; an August 30, 1991 arrest for prostitution; and a June 26, 1996 arrest for indec cond. Clerk's Papers (CP) at 210-11. The LESA records demonstrated that Sehmel worked regularly as a prostitute in Tacoma. On August 30, 1991, she was observed on Pacific Avenue in Tacoma. The arresting officer saw her enter a car and then followed the car to a dark secluded parking lot. When the arresting officer approached the car he observed Sehmel performing oral intercourse on the client. CP at 538-39. Upon arrest the client stated he had paid Sehmel $20 for her services. ś 206 On March 28, 1995 two undercover officers observed Sehmel on South Tacoma Way. The officers described this as a high prostitution area. CP at 501. When the officers pulled to the curb, they asked Sehmel if she was dating and if she wanted to go for a ride. Id. She said yes and got in the car with both men. The officers told her they each had $40 to spend. Sehmel told them they could each receive a blow job for that price. Id. at 502. After the offer and agreement, she was arrested. ś 207 On May 11, 1996, a Tacoma police officer was working a prostitution enforcement detail on South Tacoma Way. CP at 507. The officer observed Sehmel get into a car driven by a man and then drive to a secluded industrial park. The officer then observed her in the car engaged in sexual activity with the driver. Upon her arrest for public indecency, Robin Sehmel gave a false name. CP 510-11, 514. She admitted that the client had paid her $20 for her services. ś 208 On June 26, 1996 she was again observed on South Tacoma Way exposing her bare breasts to passing cars. Gregory also submitted the affidavit of David Moon, asserting that Sehmel was working regularly as a prostitute in 1998. ś 209 Prior to trial the State sought to prohibit defense inquiry into inter alia, Robin Sehmel's criminal history, her prostitution activities, arrests, convictions, and indecent exposure, work as a police informant, and dependency proceedings. ś 210 Defense counsel objected arguing that the topics were relevant. The court ruled that evidence of Sehmel's prostitution activities, arrests, and convictions were inadmissible because they were too remote in time from the incident (8/21/98) and occurred in a completely different section of Tacoma from where she met [Gregory]. CP at 275-76 (Order Den. Admis. of Victim's Prior Sexual Conduct). The court also asserted that the declaration of David Moon contained only vague statements that are based on hearsay and do not explain his basis for claiming it was `common knowledge' that [Robin Sehmel] was a prostitute in 1998. Id. The trial court also refused to consider evidence of other arrests, which did not result in convictions, claiming the arrests were not probative. ś 211 When defense counsel objected and asked the court what offer of proof it would consider sufficient, the trial judge responded: We don't have anything that says in 1998 [Sehmel] was out on the streets on 6th Avenue. We don't have anybody saying that she engaged in an act of prostitution with this victim. RP (Aug. 21, 2000) at 276. (Of course, Gregory, this victim, testified she did in fact engage in prostitution with him.) ś 212 The trial court held as a matter of law there was insufficient evidence to even warrant a hearing under the rape shield statute; however, the court did allow the defense to interview Sehmel again and inquire into whether she had engaged in prostitution activity on the streets of Tacoma between 1995 and 1998. In that interview Sehmel admitted she worked as a prostitute in 1996-1997, worked for an escort service in 1997, and admitted was still using drugs in 1998, but denied she worked as a prostitute that year. ś 213 Despite this confirmation of her more recent prostitution activities, the court again refused to allow Gregory to offer his evidence. CP at 445-46 (Supplemental Order Re: Victim's Sexual Conduct). At trial Gregory was prohibited absolutely from inquiring into or referencing any prostitution activity by Sehmel prior to August 21, 1998. Gregory was allowed only to argue she was acting as a prostitute on the night of her encounter with Gregory.