## Facts

- After visiting a bowling alley and pool hall, Seap Sa drove several young women home, including a 17-year-old complainant who was the last passenger.
- The complainant testified that Sa did not follow her directions, drove away from her neighborhood, and she became frightened.
- The complainant testified Sa said he would rape her and threatened to kill her if she did not cooperate.
- Sa pulled over and had sexual intercourse with the complainant.
- The complainant directed Sa to drop her at her boyfriend’s residence so Sa would not learn where she lived.
- The next morning, the complainant and her boyfriend had consensual sexual intercourse.
- Sa was charged and tried for aggravated rape based on, among other theories, threats of serious bodily harm.

## Issues

1. Whether Massachusetts’s rape-shield statute, Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 233, § 21B, barred evidence that the complainant had consensual sexual intercourse with her boyfriend the morning after the alleged rape when offered to suggest lack of trauma and to impeach credibility.
2. Whether excluding that evidence violated the defendant’s constitutional rights to confrontation and to present a defense.

## Decision

- The Massachusetts Appeals Court affirmed the aggravated rape conviction.
- The court held the rape-shield statute barred the proposed cross-examination about the complainant’s consensual intercourse with her boyfriend the next morning.
- The court held exclusion did not violate confrontation or the right to present a defense because the evidence was, at most, marginally relevant and not necessary to a meaningful challenge to credibility.
- The court found no abuse of discretion in the trial judge’s balancing of probative value against prejudice and distraction.

## Legal Principles

- Under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 233, § 21B, evidence of a complainant’s sexual conduct with persons other than the defendant is presumptively inadmissible and may be admitted only if relevant and if its probative value outweighs prejudicial effect, including confusion and unfair character inferences.
- A defendant’s confrontation and compulsory process rights permit reasonable limits on cross-examination to prevent harassment, prejudice, confusion, or inquiry into marginally relevant matters.
- Evidence offered to infer truthfulness or lack of trauma from a complainant’s subsequent consensual sexual activity is generally weak, speculative, and prone to improper stereotype-based reasoning.
- Exclusion of sexual-history evidence does not violate constitutional rights where the defendant retains adequate alternative means to impeach and the excluded evidence is not central to determining consent, force, or another element of the offense.
- Appellate review of rape-shield evidentiary rulings is deferential; reversal requires an abuse of discretion.

## Conclusion

The court upheld exclusion of evidence that the complainant had consensual sex with her boyfriend the morning after the alleged rape, concluding it was minimally probative, invited improper inferences barred by the rape-shield statute, and was not constitutionally required for effective cross-examination or a complete defense.


Commonwealth v. Sa, 58 Mass. App. Ct. 111, 790 N.E.2d 733 (Mass. App. Ct. 2003)