Basically Law

Issue.  Did the trial court err in admitting evidence that the defendant, who was on trial for rape, was convicted of attempted rape ten years previously?

Background.  Defendant, Otho L. Lafayette, was charged with rape.  Lafayette claimed the sex was consensual.  In effect, the case was a classic “he said, she said” case.  At trial, the State wanted to introduce evidence that the Defendant had been convicted of attempted rape ten years previously.  Under Indiana’s rules of evidence, evidence of prior crimes cannot be used “to prove the character of a person in order to show action in conformity therewith.”  However, such evidence can be admitted for other purposes, such as intent.

Even though the intent exception is applied narrowly, the trial court allowed the evidence to be presented at trial, and Lafayette was convicted.  Lafayette appealed, and the Indiana Court of Appeals vacated the verdict because the trial court erred in admitting the evidence.  Since one justice dissented in that case, the Indiana Supreme Court heard the case.

Argument.  Did the trial judge err by admitting evidence of Lafayette’s conviction ten years previously for attempted rape?  The State and trial court argued that the evidence was admissible because it went to Lafayette’s intent.  The intent exception is available when a defendant goes beyond merely denying the charged culpability and alleges a contrary intent.  The trial court found that Lafayette placed his intent at issue at the trial once he attacked the credibility of the victim on the issue whether the sex was consensual. 

So, does a criminal defendant put his intent at issue during a trial when he attacks the credibility of the witness?  How would you rule?

Court’s Analysis.  The Supreme Court ruled that the trial court erred when it admitted evidence of Lafayette’s prior conviction for attempted rape.  At a rape trial, if the defendant attacks the victim’s credibility with respect to consent, he does no more than advance the consent defense.  The Defendant does not put his intent at issue, because his intent to have sexual relations with the victim is established and admitted.  The only issue in such a case is whether he had sexual intercourse through force or the threat of force. 

The Court was bothered with the trial court’s finding that a criminal defendant opens up the issue of intent by attacking the credibility of the victim for three reasons.  1.)  The defendant would be effectively precluded from exercising the right to confront a witness’s credibility at all.  2.)  The defendant is already precluded for questioning a rape victim of her past sexual conduct.  3.)  The intent exception is narrowly construed. 

The only issue of intent is with the victim.  Did the victim intend to have sex with the defendant? 

Further, Lafayette’s prior conviction was not relevant to show whether the victim consented to sex (which is the issue at hand).  The only issue in the case was consent, not intent.   So, the prior conviction does not go to whether the victim consented to sex. 

Since the trial court erred in admitting evidence of the prior conviction, and that error was not harmless error (the only other evidence against Lafayette was the victim’s word), Lafayette’s conviction was vacated.

Read the decision, Lafayette v. State, here.