|
|
Michigan v. Lucas, 500 U.S. 145 (1991)
Contents:
Show Summary
Hide Summary
General SummaryThis case is from a collection containing the full text of over 16,000 Supreme Court cases from 1793 to the present. The body of Supreme Court decisions are, effectively, the final interpretation of the Constitution. Only an amendment to the Constitution can permanently overturn an interpretation and this has happened only four times in American history.
Michigan v. Lucas, 500 U.S. 145 (1991)
Michigan v. Lucas No. 90-149 Argued March 26, 1991 Decided May 20, 1991 500 U.S. 145
CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MICHIGAN
Syllabus
Michigan’s "rape-shield" statute generally prohibits a criminal defendant from introducing at trial evidence of an alleged rape victim’s past sexual conduct. However, a statutory exception permits a defendant to introduce evidence of his own past sexual conduct with the victim, provided that he files a written motion and an offer of proof within 10 days after he is arraigned, whereupon the trial court may hold an in camera hearing to determine whether the proposed evidence is admissible. Because respondent Lucas failed to give the statutorily required notice and, therefore, no admissibility hearing was held, a state court refused to let him introduce, at his bench trial on charges of criminal sexual assault, evidence of a prior sexual relationship with the victim, his ex-girlfriend. He was convicted and sentenced to prison, but the State Court of Appeals reversed, adopting a per se rule that the statutory notice-and-hearing requirement violates the Sixth Amendment in all cases where it is used to preclude evidence of a past sexual relationship between a rape victim and a criminal defendant.
1. Assuming, arguendo, that the Michigan rape-shield statute authorizes preclusion of the evidence as a remedy for a defendant’s failure to comply with the notice-and-hearing requirement, the State Court of Appeals erred in adopting a per se rule that such preclusion is unconstitutional in all cases. The Sixth Amendment is not so rigid. The notice-and-hearing requirement serves legitimate state interests: protecting rape victims against surprise, harassment, and unnecessary invasions of privacy and protecting against surprise to the prosecution. This Court’s decisions demonstrate that such interests may justify even the severe sanction of preclusion in an appropriate case. Taylor v. Illinois, 484 U.S. 400, 413-414, 417; United States v. Nobles, 422 U.S. 225, 241. Pp. 149-153.
2. The Michigan courts must address in the first instance whether the rape-shield statute authorizes preclusion and whether, on the facts of this case, preclusion violated Lucas’ Sixth Amendment rights. P. 153.
Vacated and remanded.
O’CONNOR, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which REHNQUIST, C.J., and WHITE, SCALIA, KENNEDY, and SOUTER, JJ., joined. BLACKMUN, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, post at 153. STEVENS, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which MARSHALL, J., joined, post, p. 155.
Contents:
Chicago: U.S. Supreme Court, "Syllabus," Michigan v. Lucas, 500 U.S. 145 (1991) in 500 U.S. 145 500 U.S. 146. Original Sources, accessed November 25, 2024, http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=HACG5L6RFADSTJZ.
MLA: U.S. Supreme Court. "Syllabus." Michigan v. Lucas, 500 U.S. 145 (1991), in 500 U.S. 145, page 500 U.S. 146. Original Sources. 25 Nov. 2024. http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=HACG5L6RFADSTJZ.
Harvard: U.S. Supreme Court, 'Syllabus' in Michigan v. Lucas, 500 U.S. 145 (1991). cited in 1991, 500 U.S. 145, pp.500 U.S. 146. Original Sources, retrieved 25 November 2024, from http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=HACG5L6RFADSTJZ.
|