State v. Tarrats, 2005 UT 50

Summary

The Supreme Court of Utah affirmed the exclusion of evidence that the prosecuting witness had allegedly made a prior false rape allegation. The court held that the defendant had to prove the prior allegation was false by a preponderance of the evidence before using it for impeachment under Utah Rule of Evidence 412, and that the evidence was independently excludable under Rule 403.

Holdings

1. A defendant who seeks to impeach a rape accuser with evidence of an alleged prior false rape allegation must first demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that the prior allegation was false.
2. The trial court acted within its discretion in finding that Tarrats failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the accuser's prior rape allegation was false.
3. Even if falsity had been established, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in excluding the evidence under Utah Rule of Evidence 403 because its low probative value was substantially outweighed by its prejudicial and confusing effects.
4. Exclusion of the proposed impeachment evidence under Rules 412 and 403 did not violate Tarrats's Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment rights.

Questions Presented

1. Whether a defendant seeking to impeach a rape accuser with an alleged prior false rape allegation must first establish the falsity of that allegation by a preponderance of the evidence under Utah Rule of Evidence 412.
2. Whether the trial court abused its discretion under Utah Rule of Evidence 412 in finding that Tarrats failed to make the required threshold showing.
3. Whether the trial court independently abused its discretion under Utah Rule of Evidence 403 by excluding the evidence because its probative value was substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice, confusion, and the risk of improper character or sexual-conduct inferences.
4. Whether exclusion of the evidence violated Tarrats's rights under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.

Disposition

affirmed