ÿWPCî( …# VUNa %¯ 0 DµU:ùw@3 4s ‡ – 0Þ 0¡a U: U:< 0Jv 0TÀ 0^ 0hr 0rÚ 0|L 0†È 0N 1uÞ 0dSb·U*¿ BéB)DC/ AMr¿ D3ÜÌDÛ 0@í_ˆLaÔÃ5v~øvÓv! AOI'Ƙ' 0D^( D/¢( BÑ(˜HP LaserJet 4 PlusHPPCL5MS,ð,,,,,ð0nLdÒ(ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman Regular X(r+$¡¡Ò4°ÒÒ„°Ò@"Arial Regular ©&Pª&P«&¬&­&{®&¯&[°&D±&²&Ó€Úƒç"‹Œ7#úÿÿú, ú3|x½&(s(2€ä$¤¤Ý ƒr+!ÝÒ4°ÒÒ„°ÒÝ  ÝÒ44ÒÒ„„ÒÔ€ ô§ùôX XÔà Œ àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó("WV$Ô€ôèêôXXÔòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôb´ôôôèêÔÔ€X'?Xôôb´Ô,†r‰AZ‹"Arial Regular+•ŸzAZ‹"Arial Regular2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ- ù-< Œ 9p`(Arial d% Line 7 d&&&&7Border 1dd€-'Cþÿ << Gÿÿ Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€$ÔÒ 4 ÒÒ „ ÒÝ  ÝÔ€$ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€$XÔÌÌò òOctoberÏ20,Ï1997ÌÌCecilÏCrowson,ÏJr.ÌÔ€$ôÔAppellateÏCourtÏClerkó ó%%%%'ÿÿdxd ÂÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€$ÔÒ 4 ÒÒ „ ÒÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÒ 4 ÒÒ „ ÒÔ€$ôÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  Ý€Oral€argument€was€heard€in€this€case€on€May€7,€1997,€in€Morristown,€Hamblen€County,ÏTennessee,€as€part€of€this€Courtððs€S.C.A.L.E.S.€(ò òSó óupreme€ò òCó óourt€ò òAó ódvancing€ò òLó óegal€ò òEó óducation€forÏò òSó ótudents)€project.Ì :Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€$ÔÒ 4 ÒÒ „ ÒÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÒ 4 ÒÒ „ ÒÔ€$ôÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  Ý€€The€defendant€proffered€the€testimony€of€a€third€witness,€Richard€Burns,€who€testifiedÏthat€he€had€sexual€intercourse€with€the€victim€on€numerous€occasions€in€the€course€of€a€steadyÏdating€relationship.€€The€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€affirmed€the€trial€courtððs€ruling€excluding€thisÏtestimony;€thus,€the€ruling€with€respect€to€Burns€is€not€before€us.Ì("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò ãÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€$ÔÒ 4 ÒÒ „ ÒÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÒ 4 ÒÒ „ ÒÔ€$ôÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  Ý€€òòSeeóó€òòLee€v.€Stateóó,€132€Tenn.€655,€179€S.W.€145€(1915)(ð ðNo€impartial€mind€can€resistÏthe€conclusion€that€a€female€who€had€been€in€a€recent€habit€of€illicit€intercourse€with€others€will€notÏbe€so€likely€as€to€resist€as€one€who€is€spotless€and€pure.ðð).Ì ~Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€$ÔÒ 4 ÒÒ „ ÒÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÒ 4 ÒÒ „ ÒÔ€$ôÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  Ý€€òòSeeóó€Annotation,€òòModern€Status€of€Admissibility€in€Forcible€Rape€Prosecution,€ofÏComplainantððs€Prior€Sexual€Actsóó,€94€A.L.R.€3d€257€(1979€&€1996€supp.).Ì WÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€$ÔÒ 4 ÒÒ „ ÒÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÒ 4 ÒÒ „ ÒÔ€$ôÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  Ý€€This€rule€of€evidence€superseded€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„17„119,€which€had€said€thatÏð ð[s]pecific€instances€of€prior€consensual€sexual€activity€between€the€victim€and€any€person€otherÏthan€the€offender€shall€not€be€admitted€into€evidence€in€prosecutions€[citations€omitted];Ïprovided,€that€when€consent€by€the€victim€is€at€issue,€such€evidence€may€be€admitted€if€it€is€firstÏestablished€to€the€court€outside€the€presence€of€the€jury€and€spectators€by€the€method€of€clearingÏthe€courtroom€that€such€activity€shows€such€a€relation€to€the€conduct€involved€in€the€case€on€theÏpart€of€the€victim€that€is€relevant€to€the€issue€of€consent.ððÌ ¹Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€$ÔÒ 4 ÒÒ „ ÒÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÒ 4 ÒÒ „ ÒÔ€$ôÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  Ý€€Although€kissing€does€not€necessarily€have€a€sexual€connotation,€the€trial€judge€ruledÏon€this€testimony€under€Rule€412.€€ð ðSexual€behavior€is€defined€in€Rule€412€as€ð ðsexual€activity€ofÏthe€alleged€victim€other€than€the€sexual€act€at€issue€in€the€case.ðð€€This€broad€definition€ð ðdeals€withÏsexual€intercourse€as€well€as€every€other€variety€of€sexual€expression.ðð€€Cohen,€et€al.,€òòsupraóó,Ïðð412.2€at€241.€€Thus,€we€consider€the€incident€under€Rule€412€as€well.€ÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHØ(d'`Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  ion-F Geneva ÒÒ  ion-F Geneva Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€$ÔÒ 4 ÒÒ „ ÒÝ  Ý›Ñ  ÑÑ X ÑÑ€ ÑÑ7€ròXXdðdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ  ÑØ ØÓ&€XÐd&Ӝـ€ÙßR€()'A1-j| ` 81 `€€@ÿRß›Þ ÞÌà@ àIN€THE€SUPREME€COURT€OF€TENNESSEE̛̜à@ àAT€KNOXVILLEÌœÌà@ à(HEARD›€AT€MORRISTOWN)ÌÌÌÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà à€€€ò òòòFOR€PUBLICATIONó óóóÌÌSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à àà àà à)à àœò òòòFiled:€€October€20,€1997ó ó›óóÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àAppellant,à àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à à€€HAMILTON€CRIMINALÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àÌVs.à àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àHON.€DOUGLAS€A.€MEYER,Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àà à€€€€€JUDGEÌSTEPHEN€TRACY€SHELINE,à àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àAppellee.à àà àà à)à àNo.€03„S„01„9701„CR„00002ÌÌÌÌÌÌò òòòFor€Appellant:à àà àà àà àà àFor€Appellee:ó óóóÌÌJohn€Knox€Walkupà àà àà àà àà àDonald€Mart€LasleyÌAttorney€General€&€Reporter€€€€€à àà àà àChattanooga,€TennesseeÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àÌMichael€E.€Mooreà àà àà àà àà àÌSolicitor€Generalà àà àà àà àà àÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àÌLinda€A.€RossÌAssociate€Solicitor€GeneralÌNashville,€TennesseeÌÌœòòAt€trial:óóÌGary›€D.€GerbitzÌDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌÌRebecca€SternÌAssistant€District€Attorney€GeneralÌChattanooga,€TennesseeÌÌÌÌÌò òÔ€$„Ôà@ àO€P€I€N€I€O€Nó óÌÔ€$XÔÌÌÌÌCOURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALSà àÌREVERSED;€JUDGMENT€OF€TRIALÌCOURT€REINSTATED.à àà àà àà àà àà àANDERSON,€C.J.ÇÓÓà àThe€question€presented€by€this€appeal€is€whether€the€trial€court€correctlyÏapplied€the€Tennessee€ð ðrape€shieldðð€rule€when€it€excluded€evidence€of€a€rapeÏvictimððs€prior€sexual€conduct.× ƒ+ ××  ×€ÌÌà àThe€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals,€with€one€judge€dissenting,€held€that€theÏevidence€should€have€been€admitted€under€the€exception€set€out€in€TennesseeÏRules€of€Evidence€412,€which€allows€the€admission€of€specific€instances€of€aÏvictimððs€sexual€conduct€with€persons€other€than€the€defendant€if€the€evidence€Ïdemonstrates€a€pattern€of€sexual€behavior€so€distinctive€and€so€closelyÏresembling€the€defendantððs€version€of€events€that€it€tends€to€prove€that€the€victimÏconsented€to€the€act€charged.€€€Because€of€the€perceived€error,€the€Court€ofÏCriminal€Appeals€reversed€the€defendantððs€rape€conviction.€€ÌÌà àWe€conclude€that€the€proffered€evidence€of€the€rape€victimððs€prior€sexualÏconduct€did€not€demonstrate€a€pattern€of€sexual€behavior€so€distinctive€and€soÏclosely€resembling€the€defendantððs€version€of€the€events€that€it€was€relevant€onÏthe€issue€of€consent.€€On€the€contrary,€it€was€the€type€of€evidence€specificallyÏintended€to€be€excluded€by€the€Tennessee€Rape€Shield€Law€as€set€forth€in€RuleÏ412€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€Evidence.€€We€therefore€reverse€the€Court€ofÏCriminal€Appeals€and€reinstate€the€rape€conviction.€ÌÌà@ àò òòòBACKGROUNDó óóóÌà àThe€defendant,€Stephen€Tracy€Sheline,€and€the€victim€were€23„year„oldÏuniversity€students€who€met€one€evening€at€a€local€bar€where€both€had€beenÏdrinking.€€During€the€evening,€Sheline€approached€the€victim,€who€knew€he€wasÏa€student.€€€He€told€her€he€needed€a€ride,€and€she€agreed€to€give€him€a€rideÏhome€to€his€fraternity€house.€€When€Sheline€said€he€no€longer€lived€at€theÏfraternity€and€was€between€apartments,€the€victim€said€she€offered€to€let€himÏsleep€on€the€living€room€couch€in€her€apartment,€which€she€shared€with€threeÏother€women.€€€Sheline€testified€that€she€simply€offered€to€let€him€stay€at€herÏapartment.ÌÌà àThe€victim€testified€that€when€they€arrived€at€her€apartment,€the€defendantÏpushed€her€against€a€wall€and€attempted€to€lift€up€her€skirt.€€She€resisted€andÏtold€Sheline€that€he€was€to€sleep€on€the€living€room€couch.€€According€to€theÏvictim,€she€said€goodnight€and€went€into€her€bedroom,€and€then€went€into€theÏadjacent€bathroom.€€When€she€emerged,€Sheline€was€in€her€bedroom€wearingÏonly€his€pants.€€Although€the€victim€resisted,€he€put€her€on€the€bed€and€pushedÏup€her€skirt.€€She€fought€him,€ð ðtried€to€wiggle€out€from€underneathðð€him,€and€ð ðtoldÏhim€to€stop.ðð€€Sheline,€however,€held€the€victimððs€hands€down€at€her€sides€andÏvaginally€penetrated€her€with€his€penis.€€When€the€victim€was€able€to€get€away,Ïshe€ran€from€her€apartment€to€a€neighborððs€apartment€for€help.€€The€neighborÏtestified€that€the€victim€was€crying€hysterically.ÌÌà àShelineððs€version€was€different.€€He€said€that€he€met€the€victim€at€the€bar,Ïand€that€an€acquaintance€told€him€that€the€victim€ð ðthought€he€was€cute€and€thatÏshe€wanted€to€kiss€him.ðð€€He€said€he€spent€most€of€the€evening€with€his€friends,Ïbut€the€victim€talked€to€him€periodically€and€also€hugged€him.€€According€to€hisÏversion,€when€the€bar€closed,€the€victim€asked€if€he€wanted€a€ride€home,€and€heÏagreed.€€As€they€drove€towards€his€fraternity€house,€he€told€her€he€was€betweenÏapartments€and€she€offered€to€let€him€stay€at€her€apartment.€€When€they€arrivedÏat€the€victimððs€apartment,€he€said€he€sat€down€on€the€bed€while€the€victim€wentÏinto€the€bathroom.€€€Sheline€testified€that€when€she€emerged€from€the€bathroom,Ïthey€started€kissing€and€touching,€and€they€removed€their€shirts.€€He€said€heÏperformed€oral€sex€on€the€victim€and€then€penetrated€her€with€his€penis.€€€TheyÏstopped€having€intercourse€when€the€victim€said,€ð ðI€donððt€think€we€can€do€thisÏanymore.ðð€€€They€continued€to€kiss€and€hug€for€several€minutes,€and€thenÏSheline€fell€asleep.ÌÌà àAs€a€result€of€a€police€investigation,€the€defendant€was€indicted€for€rape.€ÏHis€defense€was€that€the€sexual€intercourse€was€consensual.€€At€trial€in€a€jury„Ïout€proceeding,€the€defendant€proffered€the€testimony€of€two€witnesses€underÏTenn.€R.€Evid.€412.× ƒ, ××  ×€€ÌÌà àThe€first€witness,€Eric€Gray,€testified€during€the€offer€of€proof€that€he€andÏthe€victim€had€known€each€other€for€a€year,€were€good€friends,€and€that€he€hadÏengaged€in€sexual€intercourse€with€her€on€two€occasions.€€The€first€time,€he€saidÏhe€and€the€victim€were€drinking€heavily€at€a€bar€and€then€returned€to€GrayððsÏapartment€where€they€engaged€in€oral€sex€and€sexual€intercourse.€€The€secondÏtime,€he€and€the€victim€went€to€a€basketball€game,€to€a€fraternity€party,€and€thenÏto€the€victimððs€apartment,€where€they€engaged€in€sexual€intercourse.€€ÌÌà àThe€second€witness,€Gary€Jindrak,€testified€during€the€offer€of€proof€thatÏhe€and€the€victim€talked€in€the€bar€on€the€same€evening€she€met€the€defendant.€ÏHe€said€they€kissed€and€the€victim€put€her€arm€around€him.€€He€testified€thatÏlater€she€asked€him€to€go€home€with€her,€but€he€declined.€€€Jindrak€testified€thatÏhe€never€had€sexual€relations€with€the€victim€at€any€time.ÌÌà àThe€defendant€argued€to€the€trial€court€that€he€was€entitled€to€present€theÏtestimony€of€Gray€and€Jindrak€because€the€victimððs€ð ðpromiscuityðð€was€relevant€toÏhis€defense€of€consent.€€The€trial€court€ruled€that€the€proffered€testimony€of€GrayÏand€Jindrak€was€inadmissible.€€The€trial€then€proceeded€on€the€proof€of€theÏvictim€and€the€defendant€and€other€supporting€witnesses.€€After€deliberating,€theÏjury€accredited€the€victimððs€testimony€and€found€the€defendant€guilty€of€rape.€€ÌÌà àOn€appeal,€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals,€in€a€two€to€one€decision,Ïreversed€the€rape€conviction€on€the€grounds€that€the€trial€court€erred€inÍexcluding€the€evidence€of€the€first€sexual€episode€described€by€Gray,€as€well€asÏthe€events€on€the€evening€in€question€described€by€Jindrak.€€The€majorityÏconcluded€that€ÌÓÓÌà8 à[t]he€evidence€of€the€first€sexual€encounter€with€Gray€is€relevant€toÏthe€issue€of€consent€because€the€factual€scenario€so€closelyÏresembles€the€Defendantððs€version€of€the€facts€that€it€constitutesÏone€episode€of€a€distinctive€pattern€in€which€the€victim€met€anÏacquaintance€at€a€bar,€was€drinking,€and€eventually€had€sexualÏrelations€with€that€person.€€This€encounter€is€also€similar€to€theÏevents€described€by€witness€Gary€Jindrak,€and€these€twoÏencounters€taken€in€conjunction€with€the€Defendantððs€version€ofÏthe€facts,€constitute€a€distinctive€pattern.ÌÌÌÓÓJudge€John€Peay€dissented.€€He€did€not€agree€that€the€testimony€established€aÏdistinctive€pattern€that€closely€resembled€the€defendantððs€version€of€the€events.€ÏHis€dissent€reasoned€that€if€the€victimððs€behavior€with€Gray€was€distinctive,€thenÏð ðevery€woman€who€has€sexual€relations€with€a€man€she€meets€in€a€bar€isÏengaging€in€ððdistinctiveðð€sexual€behavior.ðð€€€The€dissent€also€concluded€that€theÏcourt€should€not€presume€from€Jindrakððs€testimony€that€the€victim€would€haveÏconsented€to€sexual€intercourse€with€Jindrak,€or€that€the€testimony€had€anyÏrelevance€to€whether€the€victim€consented€to€have€sex€with€the€defendant.€ÌÌà àWe€granted€the€Stateððs€application€for€permission€to€appeal€to€review€theÏapplicability€in€this€case€of€the€rape€shield€provisions€set€forth€in€Tenn.€R.€Evid.Ï412.€€ÌÌà@ àò òòòTENNESSEE€RAPE€SHIELD€LAWó óóóÌà àRape€shield€laws€were€adopted€in€response€to€anachronistic€and€sexistÏviews€that€a€woman€who€had€sexual€relations€in€the€past€was€more€likely€toÏhave€consented€to€sexual€relations€with€a€specific€criminal€defendant.× ƒ. ××  ×€€ThoseÏattitudes€resulted€in€two€rape€trials€at€the€same€time€„„€the€trial€of€the€defendantÏand€the€trial€of€the€rape€victim€based€on€her€past€sexual€conduct.€€It€has€beenÏsaid€that€the€victim€of€a€sexual€assault€is€actually€assaulted€twice€„„€once€by€theÏoffender€and€once€by€the€criminal€justice€system.€€The€protections€in€rape€shieldÏlaws€recognized€that€intrusions€into€the€irrelevant€sexual€history€of€a€victim€wereÏnot€only€prejudicial€and€embarrassing€but€also€a€practical€barrier€to€manyÏvictims€reporting€sexual€crimes.€€As€the€comments€to€Tennesseeððs€rape€shieldÏlaw€(Rule€412)€observe:ÌÓÓÌà8 à[T]he€rule.€.€.€takes€into€account€that€the€publicððs€interest€inÏprosecuting€and€convicting€people€guilty€of€various€sexualÏoffenses€is€frustrated€when€sexual€assault€victims€refuse€to€reportÏthe€offenses€or€to€testify€about€them€at€trial€because€of€the€possibleÏadmission€of€evidence€of€their€sexual€history.€€Moreover,€the€ruleÏseeks€to€minimize€the€likelihood€that€evidence€of€the€allegedÏvictimððs€sexual€history€may€cause€the€jury€to€be€unfairly€prejudicedÏagainst€the€victim.ÌÌÌÓÓAt€the€same€time,€rape€shield€laws€recognize€those€circumstances€in€which€theÏadmission€of€such€evidence,€despite€its€potentially€embarrassing€nature,€mustÏbe€admitted€to€preserve€an€accusedððs€right€to€a€fair€trial.€€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Shockleyóó,Ï585€S.W.2d€645€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1978).ÌÌà àAs€does€nearly€every€jurisdiction,× ƒ/ ××  ×€Tennesseeððs€ð ðrape€shieldðð€rule€limitsÏthe€admissibility€of€evidence€about€the€prior€sexual€behavior€of€a€victim€of€aÏsexual€offense,€and€establishes€procedures€for€determining€when€evidence€isÏadmissible.€€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€412€× ƒ0 ××  ×€œprovides:›€€ÌÓÓà8 àNotwithstanding€any€other€provision€of€law,€in€a€criminal€trial,Ïpreliminary€hearing,€deposition,€or€other€proceeding€in€which€aÏperson€is€accused€of€an€offense€under€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„502€(aggravated€rape),€39„13„503€(rape),€39„13„504€(aggravatedÏsexual€battery),€39„13„505€(sexual€battery),€39„13„507€(spousalÏsexual€offenses),€or€the€attempt€to€commit€any€such€offense,€theÏfollowing€rules€apply:ÌÌà8 à(a)€Definition€of€sexual€behavior.„„€€€In€this€rule,€ððsexual€behaviorððÏmeans€sexual€activity€of€the€alleged€victim€other€than€the€sexualÏact€at€issue€in€the€case.ÌÌà8 à(b)€Reputation€or€opinion.„„€Reputation€or€opinion€evidence€of€theÏsexual€behavior€of€an€alleged€victim€of€such€offense€isÏinadmissible€unless€admitted€in€accordance€with€the€proceduresÏin€subdivision€(d)€of€this€Rule€and€required€by€the€Tennessee€orÏUnited€States€Constitution.ÌÌà8 à(c)€Specific€instances€of€conduct.„„€òòEvidence€of€specific€instancesÏof€a€victimððs€sexual€behavior€is€inadmissible€unless€admitted€inÏaccordance€with€the€procedures€in€subdivision€(d)€of€the€Rule,€andÏthe€evidence€isóó:ÌÌà8 àà8 à(1)€€Required€by€the€Tennessee€or€United€StatesÏConstitution,€orÌÌà8 àà8 à(2)€Offered€by€the€defendant€on€the€issue€ofÏcredibility€of€the€victim,€provided€the€prosecutor€orÏvictim€has€presented€evidence€as€to€the€victimððsÏsexual€behavior,€and€only€to€the€extent€needed€toÏrebut€the€specific€evidence€presented€by€theÏprosecutor€or€victim,€orÌÌà8 àà8 à(3)€If€the€sexual€behavior€was€with€the€defendant,€onÏthe€issue€of€consent,€orÌÌà8 àà8 à(4)€òòIf€the€sexual€behavior€was€with€persons€otherÏthan€the€defendantóó,ÌÌà8 àà8 à(i)€to€rebut€or€explain€scientific€or€medical€evidence,Ïor€ÌÌà8 àà8 à(ii)€to€prove€or€explain€the€source€of€semen,€injury,Ïdisease,€or€knowledge€of€sexual€matters,€orÌÌà8 àà8 à(iii)€òòto€prove€consent€if€the€evidence€is€of€a€pattern€ofÏsexual€behavior€so€distinctive€and€so€closelyÏresembling€the€defendantððs€version€of€the€allegedÏencounter€with€the€victim€that€it€tends€to€prove€thatÏthe€victim€consented€to€the€act€charged€or€behavedÏin€such€a€manner€as€to€lead€the€defendantÏreasonably€to€believe€that€the€victim€consentedóó.ÌÌà8 àœ›œà àà àà àà à.€.€.€.›ÌÓÓœà à›Ì(Emphasis€added).ÌÌà àAccordingly,€if,€as€in€the€present€case,€the€victimððs€sexual€behavior€wasÏwith€persons€other€than€the€defendant,€it€may€be€admissible€under€the€rule€onlyÌà8 à(i)€to€rebut€or€explain€scientific€or€medical€evidence,€ÌÓÓà8 à(ii)€to€prove€or€explain€the€source€of€semen,€injury,€disease,€orÏknowledge€of€sexual€matters,€orÌÌà8 à(iii)€to€prove€consent€òòif€the€evidence€is€of€a€pattern€of€sexualÏbehavior€so€distinctive€and€so€closely€resembling€the€defendantððsÏversion€of€the€alleged€encounter€with€the€victim€that€it€tends€toÏprove€that€the€victim€consented€to€the€act€charged€or€behaved€inÏsuch€a€manner€as€to€lead€the€defendant€reasonably€to€believe€thatÏthe€victim€consentedóó.ÌÌÌTenn.€R.€Evid.€412(c)(4)(emphasis€added).€€ÓÓAs€with€other€evidentiary€rulings,€theÏadmissibility€of€the€evidence€rests€in€the€discretion€of€the€trial€court.ÌœÌà àWhen€evidence€is€offered€under€the€rule,€the€trial€court€must€conduct€aÏnon„public€hearing€and€consider€the€admissibility€of€the€proposed€evidence,Ïand€if€otherwise€admissible,€then€determine€whether€its€probative€valueÏoutweighs€its€unfair€prejudice€to€the€victim.€€Tenn.R.€Evid.€412(d).€€As€with€otherÏevidentiary€rulings,€the€admissibility€of€the€evidence€rests€in€the€discretion€of€theÏtrial€court.̛̀€à àThe€State€contends€that€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appealsðð€opinion€threatensÏto€resurrect€ill„founded€and€fallacious€presumptions€about€alleged€sexualÏvictims€and€that€its€interpretation€of€the€Rule€412(c)(4)(iii)€exception€effectivelyÏengulfs€the€entire€rule.€€The€State€argues€that€the€testimony€of€Gray€and€JindrakÏdid€not€establish€a€pattern€of€distinctive€sexual€behavior€by€the€victim€that€soÏclosely€resembled€the€defendantððs€version€of€events€as€to€be€relevant€on€theÏissue€of€consent.€€The€defendant,€however,€maintains€that€the€Court€of€CriminalÍAppeals€correctly€interpreted€Rule€412(c)(4)(iii),€and€that€excluding€theÏevidence€denied€his€rights€under€the€Tennessee€and€United€StatesÏConstitutions.ÌÌÑ , ÑÑ   ÑÑ  ÑÑ€& u` Ñà àAs€we€consider€these€arguments,€we€first€turn€to€the€language€of€RuleÏ412(c)(4),€which€requires€a€pattern€of€sexual€behavior.€€Although€there€is€noÏTennessee€case€on€the€issue,€it€is€clear€that€a€ð ðpatternðð€of€sexual€conductÏrequires€more€than€one€act€of€sexual€conduct.€€Cohen,€Paine€and€Sheppeard,ÏòòTennessee€Law€of€Evidenceóó,€ðð412.4€at€236.€€The€plain€language€of€the€ruleÏspeaks€of€ð ðspecific€instanceòòsóóðð€of€sexual€conduct€with€ð ðpersonòòsóóðð€other€than€theÏdefendant.€€Moreover,€other€jurisdictions€have€consistently€observed€that€aÏð ðpatternðð€of€sexual€conduct€denotes€repetitive€or€multiple€acts€and€not€just€anÏisolated€occurrence.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Ginyardóó,€468€S.E.2d€528€(N.C.€App.€1996);ÏòòState€v.€Woodforkóó,€454€N.W.2d€332€(S.D.€1990);€òòKaplan€v.€Stateóó,€451€So.2dÏ1386,€1387€(Fla.€App.€1984);€òòState€v.€Patnaudeóó,€438€A.2d€402€(Vt.€1981);€òòStateÏv.€Jonesóó,€617€P.2d€1214€(Haw.€1980);€òòParks€v.€Stateóó,€249€S.E.2d€672€(Ga.€App.Ï1978).€€€ÌÌà àThe€rule€also€requires€that€the€pattern€consist€of€sexual€behavior€soÏdistinctive€and€so€closely€resembling€the€defendantððs€version€that€it€tends€toÏprove€that€the€victim€consented€to€the€act€charged.€€The€advisory€comments€toÏRule€412€use€the€word€ð ðsignatureðð€cases€to€describe€the€distinctive€behaviorÏrequired.€€As€the€Illinois€Supreme€Court€has€said,€the€sexual€conduct€must€beÍð ðso€unusual,€so€outside€the€normal,€that€it€had€distinctive€characteristics€whichÏmake€it€the€complainantððs€modus€operandi.ðð€€òòPeople€v.€Sandovalóó,€552€N.E.2dÏ726,€738€(Ill.€1990);€òòseeóó€òòalsoóó€òòState€v.€Crimsóó,€540€N.W.2d€860€(Minn.€App.€1995);ÏòòJeffries€v.€Nixóó,€912€F.2d€982,€986€(8th€Cir.€1990).€€Moreover,€to€have€probativeÏvalue€on€the€issue€of€consent,€the€pattern€of€distinctive€sexual€conduct€mustÏclosely€resemble€the€defendantððs€version€of€facts.€€Cohen,€et€al.,€òòsupraóó,€ðð412.4Ïat€246„47.ÌÌà àApplying€the€rule€and€the€foregoing€principles€to€the€facts€of€this€case,€weÏconclude€that€there€was€no€òòpatternóó€of€prior€sexual€behavior€on€the€victimððs€part.€ÏGray€testified€that€on€one€occasion€in€the€past€he€had€oral€sex€and€sexualÏintercourse€with€the€victim€after€the€couple€met€in€a€bar€where€both€had€beenÏdrinking.€€On€the€second€occasion,€he€and€the€victim€had€sexual€intercourseÏafter€attending€a€basketball€game€and€a€fraternity€party.€€On€the€other€hand,ÏJindrak€testified€only€that€the€victim€kissed€him€and€asked€him€to€go€home€withÏher.× ƒ1 ××  ×€€For€the€Jindrak€testimony€to€be€considered€part€of€a€ð ðpattern,ðð€a€courtÏwould€have€to€presume€that€the€victim€would€have€consented€to€engage€inÏsexual€intercourse€with€Jindrak.€€We€are€unwilling€to€make€such€a€presumption.€ÏThe€two€separate€occasions€of€sexual€intercourse€described€by€Gray,€therefore,Ïdo€not€establish€the€required€pattern€of€sexual€conduct.ÌÌà àMoreover,€there€was€nothing€so€distinctive€about€the€testimony€of€eitherÏGray€or€Jindrak€that€so€closely€resembled€the€defendantððs€version€of€the€eventsÏthat€took€place€between€he€and€the€victim.€€The€described€acts€could€hardly€beÏcharacterized€as€signature€cases.€€As€Judge€Peay€observed€in€his€dissent,€toÏdecide€otherwise€is€to€hold€that€any€woman€who€has€sexual€intercourse€withÏsomeone€she€meets€in€a€bar€is€automatically€engaging€in€ð ðdistinctiveðð€sexualÏconduct.€€Other€courts€have€rejected€such€a€conclusion€as€well:€€ÌÓÓÌà8 àWe€observe,€however,€that€a€victimððs€sexual€history€with€othersÏonly€goes€to€show€a€generalized€attitude€toward€sex€and€says€littleÏif€anything€about€her€attitude€toward€a€specific€act€of€sex€with€theÏdefendant.€€.€.€.€We€conclude€that€the€evidence€of€[the€victimððs]Ïsexual€advances,€over€a€period€of€years,€toward€some€of€the€menÏshe€had€met€in€a€bar€is€not€relevant,€in€itself,€to€establish€that€sheÏconsented€to€have€sex€with€[the€defendant].ÌÌÌòòÓÓState€v.€Peiteóó,€839€P.2d€1223,€1229€(Idaho€App.€1992).€€ÌÌà àAccordingly,€we€hold€that€the€evidence€proffered€by€the€defendant€did€notÏestablish€a€pattern€of€distinctive€sexual€behavior€as€required€for€admissibilityÏunder€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€412(c)(4)(iii),€and€it€was€properly€excluded€by€the€trialÏcourt.€€ÌÌà@ àòòò òCONSTITUTIONALITYó óóóÌà àThe€defendant€maintains€that€the€application€of€the€rape€shield€provisionÏunder€the€facts€of€this€case€violated€his€right€to€present€evidence€and€to€confrontÍwitnesses€under€the€United€States€and€Tennessee€Constitutions.€€U.S.€Const.Ïamend€VI€&€XIV;€Tenn.€Const.€art.€I,€ðð9.€€He€argues€that€the€evidence€was€alsoÏcritical€to€his€defense€and€necessary€to€ensure€his€right€to€a€fair€trial.Ì€Ìà àThe€United€States€Supreme€Court€has€said€that€ð ðthe€rights€to€confrontÏand€cross€examine€witnesses€and€to€call€witnesses€in€oneððs€own€behalf€haveÏlong€been€recognized€as€essential€to€due€process,ðð€and€emphasized€that€theÏdenial€or€ð ðsignificant€diminutionðð€of€these€rights€ð ðcalls€into€question€the€ultimateÏintegrity€of€the€fact€finding€process€and€requires€that€the€competing€interest€beÏclosely€examined.ðð€€òòChambers€v.€Mississippióó,€410€U.S.€284,€295„96,€93€S.Ct.Ï1038,€1046,€35€L.Ed.2d€297€(1973).ÌÌà àThis€does€not€mean€that€a€defendant€has€a€right€to€present€irrelevantÏevidence.€€òòWood€v.€State€of€Alaskaóó,€957€F.2d€1544,€1549€(9th€Cir.€1992).€ÏMoreover,€the€Supreme€Court€has€recognized€that€even€the€right€to€presentÏrelevant€evidence€ð ðmay,€in€an€appropriate€case,€bow€to€accommodate€otherÏlegitimate€interests€in€the€criminal€trial€process.ðð€€òòChambersóó,€410€U.S.€at€295,€93ÏS.Ct.€at€1045.€€For€instance,€a€trial€judge€has€the€discretion€ð ðto€limit€reasonably€aÏcriminal€defendantððs€right€to€cross„examine€a€witness€ððbased€on€concernsÏabout,€among€other€things,€harassment,€prejudice,€confusion€of€the€issues,€theÏwitnessðð€safety,€or€interrogation€that€is€repetitive€or€only€marginally€relevant.ððððÏòòMichigan€v.€Lucasóó,€500€U.S.€145,€149,€111€S.Ct.€1743,€1746,€114€L.Ed.2d€205Ï(1991).€€€ÌÌà àIn€òòMichigan€v.€Lucasóó,€the€Supreme€Court€addressed€the€potential€impactÏof€rape€shield€laws€on€a€defendantððs€right€to€present€evidence€and€to€confrontÏadverse€witnesses.€€In€that€case€evidence€of€the€victimððs€prior€sexual€relationsÏwith€the€defendant€was€excluded€based€on€the€defendantððs€failure€to€make€aÏtimely€offer€of€proof€under€a€Michigan€rape€shield€law.€€In€holding€that€theÏexclusion€did€not€òòperóó€òòseóó€violate€the€sixth€amendment,€the€Court€stressed€that€theÏrape€shield€statute€ð ðrepresents€a€valid€legislative€determination€that€rape€victimsÏdeserve€heightened€protection€against€surprise,€harassment,€and€unnecessaryÏinvasions€of€privacy.ðð€€òòIdóó.,€500€U.S.€at€153,€111€S.Ct.€at€1748.€€ÌÌà àThe€Tennessee€rule,€in€addition€to€establishing€specific€circumstances€inÏwhich€evidence€relating€to€a€victimððs€prior€sexual€history€may€be€admissible,Ïalso€states€that€such€evidence€is€admissible€if€required€under€either€theÏTennessee€or€United€States€Constitutions.€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€412(b)€&€(c)(1).€€TheÏcomments€to€the€rule€cite€two€examples€from€other€states.€€In€the€first€case€fromÏOregon,€the€defendant€claimed€that€the€victim€falsely€accused€him€of€rapeÏbecause€he€had€threatened€to€tell€the€victimððs€parents€about€her€active€sexualÏconduct€with€others.€€The€Oregon€court€concluded€that€the€defendantððs€right€toÏconfrontation€was€violated€when€the€rape€shield€law€prevented€him€fromÏproving€the€victimððs€motive€to€lie€about€her€sexual€activity€with€the€defendant.€ÏòòState€v.€Jaloóó,€557€P.2d€1359€(Or.€App.€1976).€€ÌÌà àIn€the€second€case€from€Pennsylvania,€the€defendant€was€preventedÏfrom€trying€to€show€that€the€victim€accused€him€of€rape€to€get€him€out€of€theÏhouse€so€that€she€could€then€resume€sexual€activity€with€another€familyÏmember.€€The€Pennsylvania€Supreme€Court€held€that€where€ð ðthe€Rape€ShieldÏLaw€purports€to€prohibit€the€admission€of€evidence€which€may€logicallyÏdemonstrate€a€witnessðð€bias,€interest,€or€prejudice€or€which€properly€attacks€theÏwitnessðð€credibility,€it€unconstitutionally€infringes€upon€the€accusedððs€right€ofÏconfrontation€under€the€sixth€amendment€to€the€United€States€Constitution.€.€.€.ðð€ÏòòCommonwealth€v.€Blackóó,€487€A.2d€396€(Pa.€Super.€1985).ÌÌà àAlthough€the€case€by€case€nature€of€such€an€inquiry€precludes€aÏcomplete€list,€other€courts€have€recognized€similar€circumstances€in€which€theÏprior€sexual€history€of€a€victim€may€be€relevant€and€necessary€to€preserve€aÏdefendantððs€right€to€confrontation.€€òòSeeóó€òòPeople€v.€Sandovalóó,€552€N.E.2d€at€737„38€(quoting,€òòPeople€v.€Hackettóó,€365€N.W.2d€120€(Mich.€1984));€òòseeóó€òòalsoóóÏòòCommonwealth€v.€Joyceóó,€415€N.E.2d€181€(Mass.€1981).ÌÌà àIn€the€case€before€us€for€decision,€the€evidence€of€the€victimððs€priorÏsexual€behavior€was€offered€not€to€show€the€victimððs€motive,€bias,€or€a€history€ofÏfalse€claims,€but€rather,€to€show€consent.€€As€we€have€discussed,€relevance€toÏthe€issue€of€consent€requires€more€than€an€isolated€act€or€acts€of€sexualÏbehavior€„„€it€requires€a€pattern€of€distinctive€sexual€behavior€by€the€victim€thatÏclosely€resembled€the€defendantððs€version€of€events.€€The€fact€that€the€victimÍmay€have€had€sexual€relations€with€Gray€after€meeting€him€in€a€bar€is€notÏrelevant€to€whether€she€consented€to€sexual€relations€with€the€defendant.€ÏLikewise,€the€victimððs€conduct€with€Jindrak€had€no€bearing€on€the€consent€issue.€ÌÌà àIn€sum,€the€proffered€testimony€was€the€type€of€evidence€required€to€beÏexcluded€under€Rule€412.€€The€trial€courtððs€application€of€Rule€412,€therefore,Ïdid€not€deny€the€defendantððs€rights€under€the€Tennessee€or€United€StatesÏConstitutions.€ÌÌà@ àò òòòCONCLUSIONó óóóÌà àThe€proffered€evidence€of€the€victimððs€sexual€behavior€with€persons€otherÏthan€the€defendant€did€not€establish€a€pattern€of€sexual€behavior€so€distinctiveÏand€so€closely€resembling€the€defendantððs€version€of€the€encounter€with€theÏvictim€that€it€tends€to€prove€the€victim€consented€to€the€act€charged€and€it,Ïtherefore,€was€not€admissible€under€Rule€412(c)(4)(iii),€nor€was€its€admissionÏinto€evidence€required€by€the€United€States€or€Tennessee€Constitutions.€€WeÏtherefore€reverse€the€judgment€of€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€and€reinstateÏthe€rape€conviction€of€the€trial€court.€€The€costs€of€this€appeal€are€taxed€to€theÏdefendant,€for€which€execution€may€issue,€if€necessary.ÌÌÓÓÏà àà àà àà àà àà à_______________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àRILEY€ANDERSON,€CHIEF€JUSTICEÌò òÌÌÌœConcur:ó ó›ÌœÌDrowota,›€Reid,€Birch,€and€Holder,€JJ.ÌÌÓ` °†Xp”XÓ