SER Matthew Harvey, Prosecuting Attorney v. Hon. John C. Yoder, Judge, 239 W. Va. 781

Grand jury indicted Gerald G. Rankin, Jr. on multiple counts of sexual assault and sexual abuse for alleged acts with a 14‑year‑old victim (M.Y.) in 2015; Rankin ~50, victim 14.
Victim reported consensual encounters with Rankin and said he bought her a Plan B emergency contraceptive after an alleged unprotected encounter; phone messages between them were recovered.
Rankin denied sexual contact but admitted buying Plan B, claiming the victim said she had unprotected sex with someone else.
Rankin moved to introduce two categories of the victim’s prior sexual history: (1) that she was sexually assaulted at age 11 by another man; (2) whether she told Rankin she had sex with someone else within 72 hours before he bought Plan B.
Trial court allowed both forms of inquiry (with limits); the State sought a writ of prohibition to block those rulings under West Virginia Rule of Evidence 412 (rape‑shield rule).
Supreme Court of West Virginia granted the writ in part (prohibiting evidence of the age‑11 assault) and denied it in part (permitting a limited cross‑examination about the 72‑hour statement opened by the State’s use of Rankin’s statement).

Issue	State's Argument	Rankin's Argument	Held
Whether Rankin may testify that M.Y. was sexually assaulted at age 11 by another man	Such evidence is barred by Rule 412 as evidence of other sexual behavior and of specific sexual conduct of an underage victim	The evidence is necessary to show motive to fabricate/retaliation and invokes Rule 412(b)(1)(D) constitutional exception	Excluded: court held the proffer is not relevant under Rule 402 and Guthrie balancing fails; Rule 412 bars it
Whether Rankin may cross‑examine M.Y. if State introduces his recorded statement saying she told him she had unprotected sex with someone else within 72 hours before Plan B	That question is barred by Rule 412(a)(3) as specific instances of sexual conduct	If the State ‘opens the door’ by introducing Rankin’s full statement, Rule 412(b)(1)(C) permits limited rebuttal to the same evidentiary fact	Allowed (limited): defendant may ask M.Y. whether she told him that (yes/no) to rebut State’s admission; further inquiry barred

State v. Lewis, 188 W. Va. 85, 422 S.E.2d 807 (W. Va. 1992) (standards for State seeking writ of prohibition in criminal cases)
State ex rel. Hoover v. Berger, 199 W. Va. 12, 483 S.E.2d 12 (W. Va. 1996) (factors for discretionary writ of prohibition)
State v. Guthrie, 205 W. Va. 326, 518 S.E.2d 83 (W. Va. 1999) (test for when exclusion under rape‑shield law violates defendant's due process right)
State v. Varlas, 237 W. Va. 399, 787 S.E.2d 670 (W. Va. 2016) (purpose and scope of Rule 412)
United States v. Payne, 944 F.2d 1458 (9th Cir. 1991) (prior sexual conduct minimally probative of bias; allowed sanitized questioning)
United States v. Elbert, 561 F.3d 771 (8th Cir. 2009) (evidence of prior sexual behavior of minor victims irrelevant where consent cannot be legally given)