State v. Bobby Perry A/K/A Bobby Penny(075114), 137 A.3d 1130

Background

Victim (Sara) alleged repeated sexual and physical assaults by defendant Bobby Perry at his sister’s apartment on Aug. 1–2, 2009; she reported injuries and identified Perry to police.
Physical and forensic testing: victim’s blood matched her; hospital kit had no semen; a semen stain on the victim’s shorts yielded DNA from an unidentified third party (not linked to defendant or to any time of deposition).
Defendant admitted to sexual intercourse but claimed it was consensual and advanced a third-party guilt theory implicating the victim’s ex-boyfriend, Hakim Wilkins, who picked her up after she left the apartment.
On eve of trial defendant moved under New Jersey’s Rape Shield Law to admit the third‑party semen DNA to support his theory that Wilkins assaulted the victim or that the victim fabricated the claim; the trial court denied the motion as irrelevant and unduly prejudicial.
Defendant was convicted (sexual assault and aggravated assault); Appellate Division reversed in a split decision; the State appealed to the New Jersey Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court reversed the Appellate Division, holding the semen evidence was sexual-conduct evidence under the Rape Shield Law, irrelevant to defendant’s third-party theory without a temporal or identity link, and its minimal probative value was substantially outweighed by prejudice.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Perry)	Held
Whether unidentified semen on victim’s shorts is admissible despite Rape Shield Law	Evidence was irrelevant and speculative because semen was not linked to Wilkins or the time of the assault; admission would invade victim privacy and be unduly prejudicial	Semen DNA tends to create reasonable doubt and supports third‑party guilt/complete defense by showing victim had sex with another man near the time and motive to fabricate	Excluded: semen is "sexual conduct" under the Rape Shield Law, was not shown to be tied to Wilkins or the incident, therefore irrelevant and properly excluded
Proper legal standard for Rape Shield challenges	N/A (State defends trial court application of existing law)	Argued for admission under constitutional right to present a complete defense and confrontation/compulsory process	Reaffirmed two‑step Budis/Garron test: (1) relevance/necessity to material issue; (2) N.J.R.E. 403 balancing of probative value vs. prejudicial effect
Admissibility of third‑party guilt evidence based on generalized evidence	N/A	Evidence that tends to create reasonable doubt that someone else (generically) committed the offense should be admissible even if no specific suspect is identified	Third‑party evidence must show a logical link to the victim or crime; unsupported conjecture is insufficient
Whether exclusion violated defendant’s constitutional rights to a fair trial	N/A	Exclusion deprived defendant of ability to present a complete defense and to confront witnesses	No violation: trial court did not abuse discretion; exclusion was consistent with Rape Shield Law and constitutional limits because evidence lacked relevance and had low probative value outweighed by prejudice

Key Cases Cited

State v. Budis, 125 N.J. 519 (1991) (adopted a relaxed Rape Shield evidentiary standard balancing relevance and prejudice to protect confrontation rights)
State v. Garron, 177 N.J. 147 (2003) (reaffirmed Budis test and emphasized preserving defendant’s right to present a defense while limiting invasive inquiry)
State v. J.A.C., 210 N.J. 281 (2012) (discussed application of Rape Shield balancing and trial‑specific parameters for admitted evidence)
State v. Fortin, 178 N.J. 540 (2004) (recognized right to present third‑party guilt evidence if it engenders reasonable doubt)
State v. Koedatich, 112 N.J. 225 (1988) (third‑party evidence must show a link to the victim or crime; conjecture insufficient)
State v. Loftin, 146 N.J. 295 (1996) (evidence that tends to create reasonable doubt as to someone else may be admissible, but must be tied to the crime)
State v. Schnabel, 196 N.J. 116 (2008) (explained Rape Shield Law purpose to deter ‘‘foraging’’ into a victim’s sexual history)
State v. Brown, 170 N.J. 138 (2001) (articulated abuse‑of‑discretion standard for appellate review of trial evidentiary rulings)