State v. Bravo
343 P.3d 306
Utah Ct. App.2015Background
- Bravo and the Victim formerly married, divorced in 2008, but continued a sexual relationship; an August 2010 incident led to Victim ordering Bravo to stay away.
- Weeks later Victim alleges Bravo forced entry, pinned and choked her with a dog leash, raped her vaginally, carried her to the bedroom, and anally penetrated her; Bravo was charged with aggravated burglary, rape, and forcible sodomy.
- Pretrial, Bravo sought admission under Utah R. Evid. 412(b)(2) of prior sexual history with Victim to prove consent, proffering broad statements about “rough sex,” bondage, sadomasochism, autoerotic asphyxiation, and prior anal sex.
- The district court allowed testimony that the parties had sexual contact after divorce but excluded the proffered detailed sexual-history evidence as either irrelevant or, if marginally relevant, substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice under Rule 403.
- At trial Bravo testified to a consensual encounter in his hotel room and denied other factual allegations; the jury convicted him on all charges and he appealed based on the Rule 412 exclusion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court erred excluding Victim’s prior sexual history under Utah R. Evid. 412(b)(2) | State: Exclusion proper because proffer was too general and prevented fair preparation; evidence prejudicial | Bravo: Prior sexual history with accused was admissible to prove consent; exclusion violated rights | Court: Relevance (binary) — prior sexual relationship is relevant, but exclusion affirmed under Rule 403 because proffer lacked required specificity and posed unfair prejudice |
| Whether Richardson requires admitting detailed sexual-history evidence once a sexual relationship is shown | State: Richardson does not eliminate Rule 403 balancing; evidence can still be excluded | Bravo: Richardson means detailed contextual evidence is presumptively admissible because relevance standard is low | Held: Richardson makes relevance easy to satisfy, but Rule 403 still bars evidence when probative value is low or unweighable due to nonspecific proffers |
| Whether broad categories ("rough sex," BDSM, autoerotic asphyxiation) satisfy Rule 412(c) specificity requirement | State: Broad categories are unweighable and insufficient for court to perform Rule 403 balancing | Bravo: Such descriptions are probative and should be admitted to show consent | Held: Broad, categorical proffers fail Rule 412’s "specific instances" requirement and may be excluded for lack of usable probative value |
| Whether prior anal sex between the parties should have been admitted | State: Even if somewhat probative, prior anal sex had low probative value given the totality of violent allegations and risk of unfair prejudice | Bravo: Prior anal sex is directly probative of consent to anal intercourse | Held: Prior anal-sex evidence had limited probative value here (assault involved forcible entry, choking, vaginal and anal rape) and could be excluded under Rule 403 |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Richardson, 308 P.3d 526 (Utah 2013) (clarifies that relevance under Rules 401–402 is a low, binary standard and that prior sexual activity with the accused may be admissible to prove consent but remains subject to Rule 403 balancing)
- State v. Boyd, 25 P.3d 985 (Utah 2001) (explains presumption of inadmissibility for a rape victim’s past sexual conduct and lists factors for Rule 403 balancing)
- State v. Dibello, 780 P.2d 1221 (Utah 1989) (discusses categories of evidence with an unusual propensity to unfairly prejudice the jury)