James Mincey, Jr. v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.), 71A03-1611-CR-2720

In Sept. 2014, J.T. accepted a ride from James Mincey, who diverted to his home, forced her inside, battered her, and anally raped her; she later identified Mincey and led police to the scene.
Medical exam documented rectal tear and incontinence consistent with anal rape; Mincey was charged with multiple counts including Level 3 felony rape and misdemeanor battery.
Counts were severed; Mincey was tried on Counts V–VII, convicted on two counts, later pled guilty to Count I in exchange for dismissal of several counts, and received an aggregate 12-year sentence.
At trial defense sought to impeach J.T. with a 2004 prostitution conviction; the trial court excluded evidence of the prior conviction under Indiana Evidence Rule 412 (Rape Shield), but allowed extensive questioning about whether she was engaged in prostitution on the night at issue.
Mincey also claimed prosecutorial misconduct from closing argument when the prosecutor commented on J.T.’s demeanor and that she had been accused of being a prostitute; the court admonished the jury to ignore the improper portion.
The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding the exclusion under Rule 412 proper and the prosecutor’s remarks not reversible misconduct (or cured by the court’s instruction).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Mincey)	Held
Admissibility of victim’s 2004 prostitution conviction	Exclusion proper under Evidence Rule 412; conviction irrelevant to consent in 2014 and prejudicial	Conviction should be admitted to impeach victim and rebut defense denial that she would have sex for money	Evidence of the 2004 conviction excluded as barred by Rule 412 and Mincey failed to follow 412(c) procedures; cross-examination about prostitution that night was allowed, so Confrontation not violated
Prosecutorial misconduct for closing argument referencing accusation of prostitution	Remarks referred to contemporaneous accusation and victim’s demeanor; resistance to defense’s attempts to elicit prior sexual history was appropriate	Prosecutor implied victim had no prior prostitution history and improperly suggested she was unjustly accused; PowerPoint aggravated prejudice	Remarks did not rise to prosecutorial misconduct; if improper, the trial court’s curative instruction neutralized any prejudice and Mincey failed to show grave peril

Williams v. State, 681 N.E.2d 195 (Ind. 1997) (interpreting Indiana’s Rape Shield principle and permitting limited evidence of past sexual conduct only in narrow exceptions)
Conrad v. State, 938 N.E.2d 852 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010) (abuse-of-discretion review for evidentiary rulings and exclusion under Rule 412)
Cooper v. State, 854 N.E.2d 831 (Ind. 2006) (two-step test for prosecutorial misconduct and requirement to seek admonishment/mistrial to preserve claim)
United States v. Saunders, 943 F.2d 388 (4th Cir. 1991) (rejecting inference that a history of prostitution implies consent and cautioning against using past sexual conduct to prove consent)