See also FRESH COMPLAINT DOCTRINE

§ 1. Admissibility of Evidence
§ 1(a). Admissibility of Prompt Complaint
§ 1(b). Hearsay Exception for Statements by Victims
§ 1(c). Defendant’s Prior Sexual Assaults
§ 2. Victim-Counselor Privilege
§ 3. Uncorroborated Testimony of Victim

;

Hearsay Exception for Statements by Victims

Some states have special statutes allowing statements by a sexual assault victim to treating medical personnel admissible as an exception to the hearsay rule.{footnote}Ill. Rev. Stat. ch. 38, & 115-13.

Check Ill. Rev. Stat. ch. 38, & 115-10.
Check People v. E.Z., No. 2-92-0783 (2d Dist. May 11, 1994).{/footnote}  See also PHYSICIAN-PATIENT COMMUNICATIONS; CHILDREN–Child Abuse. 

Victim-Counselor Privilege

Some states recognize a privilege to prevent disclosure of confidential communications between sexual assault victims and counselors, whether or not the counselor is a physician.{footnote} [3805]  Cal. sec. 1035 et seq; Ill. sec. 8-802.1; People v. Foggy, 121 Ill. 2d 337, 521 N.E.2d 86 (1988)(privilege upheld as constitutional, notwithstanding defendant’s Confrontation Clause rights).{/footnote}  See PHYSICIAN-PATIENT PRIVILEGE; PRIVILEGES; PSYCHOTHERAPIST-PATIENT PRIVILEGE.  This privilege is sometimes extended to communications between victims of any crime and counselors.{footnote} [3806]  Ill. sec. 8-802.2.{/footnote}

Uncorroborated Testimony of Victim

Uncorroborated testimony of rape victim sufficient to convict in Indiana.{footnote}Dixon v. State, 348 N.E.2d 401 (Ind. 1976).{/footnote} 

Defendant’s Prior Sexual Assaults{footnote}Timothy E. Travers, Annot., Admissibility, in Rape Case, of Evidence that Accused Raped or Attempted to Rape Person Other Than Prosecutrix, 2 A.L.R.4th 330 (1980).{/footnote}

Other act evidence may be offered for any relevant purpose, but not to show the defendant’s bad character, or predisposition to commit the crime charged.  See OTHER ACTS AND OCCURENCES–Criminal Defendants.  In 1994, Congress modified this general rule for the  federal courts by creating a new Federal Rules of Evidence 413 (for criminal sexual assault cases), Rule [414/15] (for  civil sexual assault cases) and Rule [414/15] for child sexual abuse cases.{footnote} [3809]Pub. L. No. 103-322, § 320,935, 108 Stat. 1902, 2135-36 (1994)(codified as FRE 413 at 28 U.S.C. app. (1994).{/footnote}  See also CHILDREN.  These rules provide that evidence of the defendant’s commission of another sexual assault "may be considered for its bearing on any matter to which it is relevant."{footnote} [3810]FRE 413.{/footnote}  In the words of one commentator, this rule "revokes the prior act rule for criminal sexual assault offenses by creating what is, in essence, a crime-specific exception for sexual assault.{footnote} [3811][Author], [Once a Rapist?], 110 Harvard L. Rev. 563, 568 (1997)(providing legislative history and criticizing FRE 413).{/footnote}  [Cases decided under this rule?].

Evidence Held Admissible.  Evidence of a defendant’s prior rape has been held admissible by some courts to prove identity (or modus operandi),{footnote}Bighames v. State, 440 So. 2d 1231 (Ala. Crim. App. 1983)(evidence of other rapes committed in "novel or peculiar manner" clearly admissible); State v. Stegmann, 213 S.E.2d 262, 273 (N.C. 1975), vacated in part, 428 U.S. 902 (1976).{/footnote} criminal intent,{footnote} [3813]Crook v. Henderson, 310 F. Supp. 200, 202 (E.D. La. 1970).
            Oglen v. State, 440 So. 2d 1172, 1176 (Ala. Crim. App. 1983); People v. Pendleton, 599 P.2d 649, 653 (Cal. 1979) (en banc); State v. Searles, 282 S.E.2d 430, 436 (N.C. 1981).{/footnote} motive,{footnote}Oglen v. State, 440 So. 2d 1172, 1176 (Ala. Crim. App. 1983); State v. Searles, 282 S.E.2d 430, 436 (N.C. 1981).{/footnote} plan or scheme,{footnote}Jones v. State, 580 So. 2d 97 (Ala. Crim. App.), cert. denied, 1991 Ala. LEXIS 1240 (May 24, 1991); Williams v. State, 110 So. 2d 654 (Fla.), cert. denied, 361 U.S. 847 (1959).{/footnote} the victim’s nonconsent,{footnote}Oglen v. State, 440 So. 2d 1172, 1176 (Ala. Crim. App. 1983); Davis v. State, 635 P.2d 481, 485 (Alaska Ct. App. 1981); People v. Balcom, 1 Cal. Rptr. 2d 879, 885-86 (Cal. Ct. App. 4th Dist. 1991), rev. granted, 823 P.2d 621 (Cal. 1992); O’Neal v. State, 318 S.E.2d 66, 67 (Ga. Ct. App. 1984); State v. DeBaere, 356 N.W.2d 3011, 305 (Minn. 1984).{/footnote} and to corroborate the victim’s testimony.{footnote} [3817]Crook v. Henderson, 310 F. Supp. 200, 202 (E.D. La. 1970).
            People v. Pendleton, 599 P.2d 649, 653 (Cal. 1979) (en banc); State v. Thornton, 376 N.E.2d 492, 494 (Ind. 1978); State v. Stegmann, 213 S.E.2d 262, 273 (N.C. 1975), vacated in part, 428 U.S. 902 (1976).{/footnote}   Courts have also admitted evidence of prior sex crimes to show a disposition to commit crimes considered particularly depraved or unnatural,{footnote} [3818]Velez v. State, 762 P.2d 1297, 1301 (Alaska Ct. App. 1988); State v. Jerousek, 590 P.2d 1366, 1373, 1373 (Ariz. 1979); Reichard v. State, 510 N.E.2d 163, 165 (Ind. 1987); State v. Spaulding, 313 N.W.2d 878, 881 (Iowa 1981).
            CHECK Crook v. Henderson, 310 F. Supp. 200, 202 (E.D. La. 1970).{/footnote} such as incest, sodomy, or child sexual abuse.   See CHILDREN § 2(b); INCEST.  This is variously referred to as the "lustful disposition", "depraved sexual instinct" or "lewd disposition" exception. 

Evidence Held Inadmissible.  There are no exceptions expressly provided for under the federal rules for other act evidence offered to prove a rape victim’s nonconsent, a defendant’s "lewd disposition" or to corroborate a victim’s testimony (see above).{footnote}FRE 404(b).{/footnote}  The majority rule is that evidence of prior rapes is inadmissible to prove the victim’s nonconsent.{footnote}Lovely v. United States, 169 F.2d 386 (4th Cir. 1948).
            Velez v. State, 762 P.2d 1297, 1305 (Alaska Ct. App. 1988); People v. Bruce, 256 Cal. Rptr. 647, 650 (1989), rev. granted, 823 P.2d 621 (Cal. 1992); People v. Key, 203 Cal. Rptr. 144 (Cal. Ct. App. 1984);  Ross v. State, 516 N.E.2d 61 (Ind. 1987); Meeks v. State, 234 N.E.2d 629, 632 (Ind. 1968); State v. Hatcher, 372 So. 2d 1024 (La. 1979); State v. Bullock, 651 S.W.2d 173, 175 (Mo. Ct. App. 1983); State v. Pace, 275 S.E.2d 254 (N.C. Ct. App. 1981); State v. Beaulieu, 359 A.2d 689 (R.I. 1976); Caldwell v. State, 477 S.W.2d 877 (Tex. Crim. App. 1972); Foster v. Commonwealth, 362 S.E.2d 745 (Va. Ct. App. 1987); State v. Irving, 601 P.2d 954 (Wash. Ct. App. 1979), rev. denied, 93 Wash. 2d 1007 (1980).
{/footnote}  Moreover, because rape is a general intent crime, not requiring proof of criminal intent, many courts have held that evidence of prior crimes is inadmissible on the issue of intent.{footnote}Jones v. State, 580 So. 2d 97 (Ala. Crim. App.), cert. denied, 1991 Ala. LEXIS 1240 (May 24, 1991).
            See also Caldwell v. State, 477 S.W.2d 877, 878 (Tex. Crim. App. 1972)(because intent conclusively premed from physical act, prior crimes inadmissible to prove intent).

 CHECK Coler v. State, 418 So.2d 238, 239 (Fla. 1982)(intent not in issue in prosecution for sexual battery); State v. Cantrell, 673 P.2d 1147, 1154 (Kan. 1983), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 817 (1984)(rape not specific intent crime); Alford v. State, 266 S.W.2d 804 (Ark. 1954); State v. Moore, 534 So. 2d 1275 (La. Ct. App. 1988), cert. denied, 560 So.2d 21 (La. 1990); People v. Bruce, 256 Cal. Rptr. 647, 650 (Cal. Ct. App. 1989), rev. granted, 823 P.2d 621 (Cal. 1992).{/footnote}  See OTHER ACTS OR OCCURENCES–Criminal Cases: Proper Purposes. 

In acquaintance rape cases, evidence of prior sexual assaults has generally been held inadmissible, because consent is normally the only issue in such cases.{footnote} [3822]Lovely v. United States, 169 F.2d 386, 390 (4th Cir. 1948).

Velez v. State, 762 P.2d 1297 (Alaska Ct. App. 1988); Hodges v. State, 403 So. 2d 1375 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981); Brown v. State, 459 N.E.2d 376, 379 (Ind. 1984); Malone v. State, 441 N.E.2d 1339 (Ind. 1982); State v. Saltarelli, 655 P.2d 697 (Wash. 1982) (en banc); State v. Cox, 787 P.2d 4 (Utah Ct. App. 1990).
            Cf. Thornton v. State, 376 N.E.2d 492, 494 (Ind. 1978)(prior crimes admissible because defendant disputed that intercourse ever took place).
            Contra Jones v. State, 580 So. 2d 97 (Ala. Crim. App.), cert. denied, 1991 Ala. LEXIS 1240 (May 24, 1991)(prior sexual assualt admitted under "plan or scheme" exception even though defendant admitted intercourse with victim).

{/footnote}

Bibliography

Sheri B. Ross, Yes or No to Consent? Conforming Rule 404(b) to Society’s New Understanding of Acquaintance Rape, U. Miami L. Rev. 343 (1993).
Robert N. Block, Defining Standards for Determining the Admissibility of Evidence of Other Sex Offenses, 25 UCLA L. Rev. 261 (1977).

Related Articles

CHILD ABUSE; POST-TRAUMATIC STRESS SYNDROME; RAPE TRAUMA SYNDROME; SEXUAL HISTORY.