Background

• Conrad was convicted of two counts of criminal deviate conduct (Class B) after a jury trial Feb 16–18, 2010; Count II was later vacated and judgment entered on Count I with a 12-year sentence.
• Conrad sought to introduce testimony that S.L. engaged in kissing/making out with Nagle before Conrad’s involvement, to impeach credibility, but the trial court barred it under Rule 412 and 403.
• No written motion to introduce past sexual conduct was filed as required by Rule 412(b); the court nevertheless considered waiver due to anticipation of a motion.
• Evidence sought concerned S.L.’s conduct with Nagle “in a close period of time” but not contemporaneous with Conrad’s conduct; the court found it to be past sexual conduct under Rule 412.
• The appellate court upheld the Rule 412/403 exclusion, and held the constitutional right to present a defense was not violated since Conrad could impeach S.L. through other cross-examination and the jury still saw contemporaneous inconsistencies.
• Conrad’s arguments rely on impeaching credibility through excluded evidence; the court concluded the exclusions did not prejudicially impair his defense or right to confrontation.

Issues

Key Cases Cited

• State v. Walton, 715 N.E.2d 824 (Ind.1999) (rape-shield rationale; exceptions not present here)
• Williams v. State, 681 N.E.2d 195 (Ind.1997) (victim’s prior sexual activity generally excluded; defense not uplifted by third-party conduct)
• Sallee v. State, 785 N.E.2d 645 (Ind.Ct.App.2003) (ten-day written motion required for past sexual conduct evidence)
• Oatts v. State, 899 N.E.2d 714 (Ind.Ct.App.2009) (abuse of discretion standard; confrontation/right to defense analysis)
• Borosh v. State, 166 Ind.App. 378, 336 N.E.2d 409 (Ind.App.1975) (constitutional rights to cross-examination considered in evidence rulings)
• Little v. State, 650 N.E.2d 343 (Ind.Ct.App.1995) (limitations on exceptions to rape-shield rule)