Court Opinion

ID: 9570889
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 20:27:18.984446+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:20:47.969498
License: Public Domain

THOMAS, Justice,
concurring, with whom RAPER, Justice, joins.
This conviction should be affirmed, and I agree with the justification of the disposition which is found in the majority opinion, with one exception.
The district court refused the proffered evidence of recent sexual intercourse prior to the rape on the ground that such evidence was not relevant. I agree with that ruling by the district court, and I would affirm the district court in that regard no matter how elaborate the offer of proof might be.
In this case the defendant made his stand on the defense of alibi. The nature of the alibi defense is such that it does not raise any issue as to whether the crime charged did in fact occur. United States v. Spoonhunter, 476 F.2d 1050 (10th Cir.1973); and People v. Lukoszus, 242 Ill. 101, 89 N.E. 749 (1909). What is in issue is the identity of the accused as the perpetrator of the crime since the establishment of an alibi demonstrates the presence of the defendant at a place so remote that it would have been impossible for him to have committed the crime.
The State presented medical testimony that sperm were present in the victim’s vagina to corroborate the fact of penetration. The offered evidence of recent sexual intercourse prior to the rape would at the most demonstrate an alternative event to the penetration in the course of the rape to explain the presence of the sperm. As between this defendant and the State, however, whether penetration occurred in the course of the rape was not in issue. It follows, as the district court ruled, that the offered evidence simply was not relevant. See Rule 401, WRE (to become effective January 1, 1978). This disposition is consistent with the legislative intent manifested in the 1977 revision of the Wyoming sexual assault statutes. § 1, Chapter 70, S.L. of Wyoming, 1977.
Such evidence would, of course, impugn the chastity of the victim, an advantage which has long been sought by diligent counsel defending charges of rape. It no *248doubt is helpful in an attempt to try the victim, a practice which Justice Raper in effect condemned in his concurring opinion in Lopez v. State, Wyo., 544 P.2d 855 (1976). In the particular circumstances of this case the only possible justification for dealing with the chastity of the victim is to be found in attempting to impeach her credibility.
The general rule is that such evidence is not admissible for that purpose. State v. Koch, 64 Wyo. 175, 189 P.2d 162 (1948); United States v. Spoonhunter, supra; State v. Smith, 259 La. 515, 250 So.2d 724 (1971); People v. Schafer, 4 Cal.App.3d 554, 84 Cal.Rptr. 464 (1970); Shapard v. State, Okl.Cr., 437 P.2d 565 (1968), cert. den., 393 U.S. 826, 89 S.Ct. 89, 21 L.Ed.2d 97 (1968); Shay v. State, 229 Miss. 186, 90 So.2d 209 (1956). Admitting any such evidence when the defendant is committed to the defense of alibi simply permits doing indirectly what the defendant cannot do directly.