Nature of the Case
To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.
Facts
Wilhelm (D) was convicted of third-degree criminal sexual conduct. D claimed that he observed the victim lift her shirt, expose her breasts, and allowed a man to 'fondle' her breasts in public. D claimed that another witness had also seen this activity. P argued that the rape-shield statute to keep this evidence inadmissible. D argued that the lifting of the shirt was not sexual conduct. D also argued that another state's similar rape-shield statute had been held not to prohibit such evidence. D moved to have this evidence admitted as relevant to the issue whether the victim had consented to intercourse with him later that same evening in his boat that was parked in his parents' driveway. This evidence was excluded under the rape shield law. D claims on appeal that the trial court abused its discretion by not allowing in evidence of the victim's conduct at a tavern just prior to her conduct with D.
Support@ bsmsphd.com
Casebriefs Co