Fells v. State

207 S.W.3d 498 (2005)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

S.H. was standing in the entrance to a housing project when D drove up and beckoned to her. D asked if he knew her. The two then talked for about twenty to thirty minutes. S.H. mentioned that she was hungry, and he offered to drive her to a gas station so that she could get something to eat. D complimented S.H. on her physical appearance, and he portrayed himself as a trustworthy friend in whom she could confide. D asked S.H. if she wanted to drive with him so that they could watch the Super Bowl on his car's television and S.H. could finish talking about her problems. S.H. agreed. He drove several miles and parked in an area with which S.H. was unfamiliar. S.H. told D that she was pregnant and had suffered complications from her pregnancy earlier in the day. She also told him that there were warrants out for her arrest and that she had few friends and nowhere to go. D parked his car, and the two sat in the backseat to watch the Super Bowl. D began to grope S.H. When she protested, he threatened to leave her to find her own way home. S.H. feared for her life and the life of her unborn child, and she submitted. Police officers approached the vehicle. D told the police that everything was fine, but S.H. said that she had been raped. D then told the officers S.H.'s name and that she had warrants out for her arrest. S.H. left with the police. D was eventually charged with rape. P moved to prevent D from questioning S.H. regarding her HIV-positive status. The motion was granted. D and S.H. testified at trial, as did R.B., an alleged victim of an earlier rape by D. D moved to exclude R.B.'s testimony on the grounds that its only purpose was to portray him as a criminal but the court determined that the testimony was admissible under Rule 404(b) as evidence of modus operandi. After R.B. testified that she had felt threatened by D, his attorney attempted to cross-examine her by reading a police case summary in which a detective noted that R.B. had told him that D had not threatened her in any way. The jury found D guilty of rape. The court of appeals reversed holding that D should have been able to present evidence that S.H. was HIV-positive and that R.B.'s testimony should have been excluded. D appealed.