Pierson v. People

Summary

The Colorado Supreme Court affirmed the exclusion of evidence that the child victim had experienced sexual contact with a teenage cousin during the same period as the charged offenses. The court held that the evidence did not fall within the rape-shield statute’s exception for evidence showing the source of semen, pregnancy, disease, or similar evidence of sexual intercourse, and was not sufficiently probative as an alternate explanation for the child’s sexual knowledge or pain. The trial court therefore did not abuse its discretion in excluding the evidence.

Holdings

1. Evidence of the victim's sexual contact with her cousin did not fall within the exception in section 18-3-407(1)(b) because it was not evidence of sexual intercourse or similar physical or demonstrative evidence showing the source or origin of semen, pregnancy, disease, or comparable evidence of sexual intercourse.
2. Evidence that does not fall within the statutory exceptions may still be admissible under section 18-3-407(2) if, after the required written offer of proof and in-camera hearing, it is relevant to a material issue and satisfies the applicable evidentiary balancing.
3. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by excluding the evidence because the proffered prior sexual contact did not provide a sufficiently probative alternate explanation for the victim's basic knowledge of male anatomy, male arousal, or pain from pressure on her external genitalia.
4. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in excluding the evidence of the victim's prior sexual contact with her cousin.

Questions Presented

1. Whether evidence of the victim's prior sexual contact with a teenage cousin fell within the rape-shield statute's exception for evidence showing the source or origin of semen, pregnancy, disease, or similar evidence of sexual intercourse.
2. Whether the prior-sexual-contact evidence was admissible under the rape-shield statute's general procedure because it was relevant to a material issue, specifically as an alternate explanation for the victim's sexual knowledge, pain, or injuries.
3. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by excluding the proffered evidence.

Disposition

affirmed