The Latest Developments in California’s Existing Rape Shield Laws

According to an unreported case in the California legal system, People v. Fontana, the Fifth Division of the First District Court of Appeals overturned an outstanding rape conviction and accompanying eighty-nine year sentence for a serial sex offender. According to the courts, the existing Rape Shield Laws do not prove applicable if a defendant denies having sex with the alleged victims. At first, the case looks innocuous enough; however, the serious nature of the allegations and the relatively minimal consequences, and the reversal of existing rape shield laws, the case could become extremely important in future legal proceedings. At this time, the California Supreme Court has accepted review of the case, and the decision of the court could alter a great deal the ways that attorneys represent accused sex offenders, as well as the alleged sex crime victims.

The Case of People v. Fontana

According to the arrest records, the victim in question alleged that the offender reportedly rented a room above her discount store in San Francisco. The woman, who was 19 years old at the time, alleged the defendant, who is a convicted sex offender, took her to his room, and forced her to participate in sex acts and photography of these acts under threat to post the picture online if she reported him to authorities. According to medical professionals at trial, the wounds on the victim were consistent with rape. Fontana, however, as the defendant in the case, testified in his own defense and stated the victim attempted to seduce him. At the time, Fontana noticed semen between her legs, was allegedly grossed out, and panicked, which led him to have to physically fend off her sexual advances. Fontana’s attorney, in attempt to support the semen between the legs statement, presented evidence stating the victim had intercourse with her boyfriend the previous morning, which would also account for the vaginal injuries medical examiners stated were consistent with rape. According to the judge presiding over the case, this personal information about the victim was inadmissible per California’s Rape Shield Laws.

The Reasons and Exclusions to Existing California Rape Shield Laws

Essentially, modern rape shield laws have been in existence in the United States for several decades in various forms depending on the court rulings of each individual state. However, at their most basic application, these laws were intended to protect alleged sex crime victims by preventing their past sexual history as being admissible evidence in a trial. In the state of California, these laws are codified under sections 1103 and 782 of California’s Evidence Code. Both sections restrict the use of previous sexual history of victims to be used as evidence. There are, however, some necessary exclusions to these protections, which typically include situations where alleged victims and the defendant had previously engaged in consensual sexual contact. These exclusions, however, were very limited and some published California laws in fact discuss the specific exceptions to the rape shield laws. Due to the inadmissibility, at the time, of Fontana’s defense attorney’s evidence regarding the victim, the defendant was convicted and sentenced to 89 years under the three strikes laws in the California.

The Reversal of the Decision by Appellate Courts

Fontana appealed the case, and in turn, the decision and conviction was reversed by an appellate judge. Judge Henry Needham noted that the original trial had misapplied rape shield laws to the detriment of the defendant. He cited other state’s cases that used partial past sexual history of a victim to construct a reasonable explanation of physical evidence collected in a given case. The exclusion of this important piece of information for Fontana’s defense meant that the appellate courts could not prove its exclusion was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. The appellate judge stated that the refusal to admit the evidence, under the guise of California’s Rape Shield laws, was a grievous error.

Statewide and Potential National Implications of the Fontana Case

The appeals court decision in the Fontana case created even wider ranges of exclusions under the existing California Rape Shield Laws. These exemptions were previously unavailable to defendants and their counsel. Criminal defense attorneys and those embroiled in sex offense cases will most likely have a keen interest in the implications of this ruling and the future review of the California Supreme Court.

More Infomation: San Francisco Sexual Assault Lawyer