New Developments in California Rape Shield Laws
Earlier this year a California court of appeals unexpectedly overturned the conviction of a serial sex offender, relying upon an unusual interpretation of the Evidence Code.


July 01, 2009 /24-7PressRelease/ -- New Developments in California Rape Shield Laws

Article provided by Ahmed & Sukaram, Attorneys at Law
Visit us at www.ahmedandsukaram.com

Earlier this year, in the unreported California case of People v. Fontana, Division Five of the First District Court of Appeals overturned a rape conviction and an 89-year sentence that had been imposed on a serial sex offender. In doing so, the court held that California's rape shield laws do not apply when the defendant denies having sex with the victim.

Because such serious allegations led to minimal consequences, and because this case represented a fundamental departure from rape shield laws, People v. Fontana could become a very important case. Even though it was unpublished, the California Supreme Court has granted review. The Court's decision could mean a great deal for attorneys, as well as accused sex offenders and alleged victims.

The Case

The alleged victim in People v. Fontana was a 19-year-old woman who worked at a discount store in San Francisco. She is known in court documents only as "Irene S." According to the facts of the case established at jury trial, the defendant was a convicted sex offender. He invited Irene up to the hotel room he rented above her store. Once there, he allegedly forced her to participate in sexual acts and took pictures of her -- threatening to post the pictures on the Internet if she told the police.

At jury trial, prosecutors had healthcare providers testify about damage to Irene's genitals, bruises on her shoulder and scalp, cuts on her face and signs of strangulation. These, they said, were signs of rape.

The defendant -- Fontana -- also testified at the trial on his own behalf. He said that Irene had tried to seduce him. When she took off her clothes, he panicked. He testified that he saw semen already between her legs and was "grossed out." He told the jury that he hurt her while trying to fend off her advances.

Fontana's lawyer worked to strengthen his case by trying by introducing evidence that, on the morning of the event, Irene had had sex with her boyfriend. This would help explain the semen present in the case as well as the injuries to her genitals. The judge, however, refused to allow this evidence. He cited California's rape shield law.

California Rape Shield Laws, Their Purposes and Exceptions

Rape shield laws have been in existence in the American legal system for many years. Although these laws very from state to state, they generally have one common purpose: protecting a rape victim by preventing evidence of prior sexual history from being used against the victim in court.

In California, rape shield laws are found in Evidence Code Sections 1103 and 782. These two sections restrict evidence of prior sexual contact from being used against a rape victim. Some situations have proven exceptions to rape shield evidence, but these are usually limited circumstances where the alleged victim and the defendant had consensual sex before allegations of rape were made. In fact, a few published California cases have discussed rape shield laws and their exceptions.

Because the trial court judge used the rape shield laws in Fontana's case, the evidence was not introduced and the jury believed Irene. Fontana was originally convicted and sentenced to 89 years to life under California's One Strike and Three Strikes laws.

The Appellate Court's Rationale

Fontana's case, however, went to appeal and was reversed. The appellate judge -- Justice Henry Needham -- ruled that the original judge had erred when he applied the rape shield laws. Citing cases from other states, he explained that the evidence would have provided an alternative explanation and might have helped the jury to believe Fontana's story. Because the evidence was crucial to Fontana's defense, the appellate court could not conclude its exclusion was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.

Justice Needam explained that California's rape shield law precludes evidence of the victim's sexual conduct in order to prove consent was given. The Justice wrote that Fontana had completely denied having sex with Irene so that consent was not an issue. He said that without evidence that Irene had consensual sex earlier in the day a sexual assault by Fontana was the only explanation for the issues. For this reason, the trial court's refusal to admit the evidence was a significant error.

The Implications of This Case

The appellate court's reasoning in Fontana creates a very large exception to California rape shield laws that was previously unavailable. Accordingly, it is very likely that this case will receive much attention in the future -- both from criminal defense attorneys who help people facing sex offense charges and from advocates against sexual violence. Especially as the case proceeds to the California Supreme Court, lawyers and lay people alike may become familiar with this important, but unpublished case.

Further Related Resources:


Press Release Contact Information:

Findlaw PR