State v. Knox, 94-275
| Decision Date | 19 July 1995 |
| Docket Number | No. 94-275,94-275 |
| Citation | 536 N.W.2d 735 |
| Parties | STATE of Iowa, Appellee, v. James L. KNOX, Appellant. |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
Linda Del Gallo, State Appellate Defender, and John F. Fatino, Asst. State Appellate Defender, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Atty. Gen., Mary Tabor and Charles Thoman, Asst. Attys. Gen., and Lynn K. Fillenwarth, County Atty., for appellee.
Considered en banc.
A jury convicted the defendant of sexual abuse in the third degree. He appeals, challenging an evidentiary ruling and the sufficiency of the evidence to convict him. The evidentiary ruling involves Iowa's rape shield law. See Iowa R.Evid. 412. The defendant sought to introduce evidence that (1) the complainant had chlamydia at the time the defendant allegedly sexually abused her, and (2) the defendant did not have the disease when tested three months later. The district court denied admission of this proffered evidence after a rule 412 hearing. We find no abuse of discretion in the challenged ruling. Nor do we find that the evidence was insufficient to convict the defendant. We affirm.
The complainant and Kevin Moore met in December 1992. They dated briefly and had an intimate relationship. In January 1993 Moore invited the complainant to a party at his house in Estherville. Amy Thomsen, a friend, drove the complainant to the party.
The complainant consumed alcohol at the party. At some point, she and Thomsen left the party in Thomsen's car. They headed for a Spirit Lake bar.
On the way out of Estherville, the complainant and Thomsen got into an argument about returning to Moore's party. The argument culminated with the complainant getting out of Thomsen's car and attempting to hitchhike back to the party. Within a few minutes, James L. Knox picked the complainant up as she was walking along the highway. The complainant testified that she asked Knox to take her back to Moore's residence. Instead, he drove to a nearby car wash, where he allegedly sexually assaulted her.
The State filed a trial information charging Knox with sexual abuse in the third degree. See Iowa Code § 709.4(1) (1993). Knox pleaded not guilty and waived his right to speedy trial.
Knox filed a motion for a change of venue which the State resisted. The State filed a motion in limine to invoke our rape shield law. The State filed a second motion in limine to exclude evidence that at the time of the assault, the complainant had chlamydia. These motions were consolidated for a single evidentiary hearing. After the hearing, the court (1) denied Knox's motion for a change of venue, (2) delayed ruling on the State's second motion in limine, and (3) granted Knox a continuance so that he could file a rule 412 motion regarding the chlamydia evidence.
Knox then filed a rule 412 motion on the issue. After the rule 412 hearing, the court ruled that the chlamydia evidence was not admissible.
At trial, Knox made an offer of proof on the chlamydia issue, which the court denied. The court also denied his motion for judgment of acquittal and his motion for mistrial.
The jury convicted Knox of the crime charged. The district court denied Knox's motion for new trial and motion in arrest of judgment. The court sentenced Knox to not more than ten years imprisonment.
It is from the judgment of conviction and sentence that Knox appeals. We recite additional facts as they relate to the issues we discuss.
Iowa Rule of Evidence 412 pertinently provides:
(a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, in a criminal case in which a person is accused of sexual abuse, reputation or opinion evidence of the past sexual behavior of an alleged victim of such sexual abuse is not admissible.
(b) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, in a criminal case in which a person is accused of sexual abuse, evidence of a victim's past sexual behavior other than reputation or opinion evidence is also not admissible, unless such evidence other than reputation or opinion evidence is:
(1) ... constitutionally required to be admitted; or
(2) admitted in accordance with subdivision "c" and is evidence of:
(A) past sexual behavior with persons other than the accused, offered by the accused upon the issue of whether the accused was or was not, with respect to the alleged victim, the source of semen or injury; or
....
(c)(3) If the court determines on the basis of [a rule 412 hearing] that the evidence which the accused seeks to offer is relevant and that the probative value of such evidence outweighs the danger of unfair prejudice, such evidence shall be admissible in the trial to the extent an order made by the court specifies evidence which may be offered and areas with respect to which the alleged victim may be examined or cross-examined.
(d) For purposes of this rule, the term "past sexual behavior" means sexual behavior other than the sexual behavior with respect to which sexual abuse is alleged.
(Emphasis added.)
As he did in the district court, Knox maintains that the chlamydia evidence was admissible under this statute on three grounds. First, the evidence was exculpatory. Second, the evidence could be used to impeach the credibility of the complainant. Last, the evidence was constitutionally required to be admitted.
Our review of the district court's ruling on the chlamydia evidence is for an abuse of discretion. See Hutchison v. American Family Mut. Ins. Co., 514 N.W.2d 882, 885 (Iowa 1994) (). We find an abuse of discretion only when the district court "exercises its discretion on grounds or for reasons clearly untenable or to an extent clearly unreasonable." State v. Peters, 525 N.W.2d 854, 859 (Iowa 1994) (citation omitted).
A. The exculpatory ground. In his rule 412 motion, Knox stated he intended to offer evidence that the complainant had chlamydia at the time of the alleged incident and he did not. The complainant did test positive for chlamydia when she was examined at a hospital shortly after the alleged incident. Knox did not have the disease when he was tested three months later.
The district court concluded this proffered evidence (1) had "very weak" probative value, (2) would violate rule 412 as evidence of a specific instance of past sexual behavior, and (3) did not fit within the exceptions of rule 412(b)(2)(A). The court therefore ruled the proffered evidence was inadmissible.
We need not decide the question whether this proffered evidence of chlamydia falls within the prohibition of the rape shield law. If such evidence was outside the rape shield law, it was admissible or inadmissible on the general grounds of relevancy. See State v. Alvey, 458 N.W.2d 850, 852 (Iowa 1990) ().
Evidence is relevant when it has "any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence." Iowa R.Evid. 401. The test of relevancy is "whether the evidence offered would render the desired inference more probable than it would without such evidence." Alvey, 458 N.W.2d at 852 (citation omitted).
The inference Knox would have the jury make is that he did not engage in sexual intercourse with the complainant. To support this inference Knox proffered the chlamydia evidence at the rule 412 hearing.
Because of other evidence, the district court concluded the probative value of this proffered evidence was "very weak." We agree.
The other evidence included the following. Chlamydia is caused by a bacterial organism which affects the male and female urogenital tracts. Chlamydia is usually transmitted by sexual intercourse. A male has a thirty percent chance of contracting the disease from an infected female in a single act of intercourse. Use of condoms substantially reduces this risk. In contrast, a female has a seventy percent chance of contracting the disease from an infected male. Had Knox engaged in unprotected sexual intercourse with the complainant, his chances of contracting the disease from the complainant would have been only one out of three.
In addition, the complainant testified that she was penetrated but she was not sure whether she had been penetrated with a penis, a finger, or some other object. She also testified that Knox did not move his body as if he were having sexual intercourse. Nor could she tell whether he reached any kind of climax. Investigators found no seminal fluid or foreign pubic hairs in the complainant's underpants. Had such evidence been found, one could reasonably infer unprotected sexual intercourse. Shortly after the alleged incident, the police arrested Knox and found condoms in his pocket. All of this evidence suggests that Knox may have used a condom or may have digitally penetrated the complainant. In either of these events, the chances of Knox contracting chlamydia was nil.
Finally, there was evidence that chlamydia is easily treatable with widely available antibiotics. This suggests that Knox could have been infected at the time of the alleged incident but was cured when tested three months later.
The rape shield law and the general rules of relevancy require a balancing test. The evidence may have some relevancy, yet it may not be admissible if the probative value of such evidence is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. See Iowa R.Evid. 403; 412(c)(3). Evidence is unfairly prejudicial if it may cause a jury to base its decision on something other than the established propositions in the case. State v. Plaster, 424 N.W.2d 226, 231 (Iowa 1988) (citation...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Lewis
...the introduction of evidence of a sexually transmitted disease 81 N.E.3d 161 under various rape shield statutes. See State v. Knox , 536 N.W.2d 735, 743 (Iowa 1995) (trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to admit proffered evidence that victim tested positive for chlamydia wh......
-
State v. Kraai
...that "[t]his court has held that a rape victim's accusation need not be corroborated by physical evidence"); State v. Knox , 536 N.W.2d 735, 742 (Iowa 1995) (en banc) ("The law has abandoned any notion that a rape victim's accusation must be corroborated."). The noncorroboration instruction......
-
State v. Mitchell
...was created by the testimony was insufficiently prejudicial to overcome the evidence indicating Mitchell's guilt. See State v. Knox, 536 N.W.2d 735, 742 (Iowa 1995) ("The only direct evidence is the complainants testimony. But under today's law, that is sufficient to convict. The law has ab......
-
State v. Pierson
...despite blood being splattered at the scene of the crime. The jury is in the best position to assess credibility. State v. Knox, 536 N.W.2d 735, 742 (Iowa 1995); State v. Hulbert, 481 N.W.2d 329, 332 (Iowa 1992). It is the jury's duty to sort out the credibility of witnesses and place credi......