## Facts

- Lewis Rodney Gagne, a Michigan prisoner, was convicted of first-degree criminal sexual conduct after a sexual encounter with his former girlfriend, P.C., involving Gagne and a codefendant.
- The central trial dispute was consent: P.C. testified the encounter began consensually but became nonconsensual through alleged force and coercion.
- Gagne’s defense theory was that the encounter was consensual and consistent with prior consensual group-sex activity during his relationship with P.C.
- Applying Michigan’s rape-shield statute, the trial court admitted evidence of P.C.’s prior sexual conduct with Gagne, including prior group sex involving Gagne and the codefendant and use of objects.
- The trial court excluded two additional incidents: (1) an alleged prior threesome involving P.C., Gagne, and another man; and (2) an alleged offer by P.C. to have sex with Gagne and his father.
- A jury convicted Gagne of two counts and acquitted him of a third; the Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed, rejecting constitutional challenges to the evidentiary exclusions.
- In federal habeas proceedings under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, the district court granted relief, and an initial Sixth Circuit panel affirmed; the case was reheard en banc.

## Issues

1. Whether excluding the two additional sexual-history incidents violated the Sixth Amendment right to confrontation and the due process right to present a complete defense.
2. Under AEDPA, whether the state appellate decision upholding the exclusions was contrary to, or an unreasonable application of, clearly established Supreme Court precedent.

## Decision

- The en banc Sixth Circuit reversed the district court and denied habeas relief.
- The court held the state court’s ruling was not an unreasonable application of clearly established Supreme Court law under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d).
- The court concluded the excluded incidents were, at most, marginally probative and largely cumulative given the substantial sexual-history evidence admitted.
- The court determined the defendant was not prevented from presenting the core consent defense or from meaningfully cross-examining the complainant.

## Legal Principles

- Federal habeas relief under AEDPA is available only when the state court decision is contrary to, or an unreasonable application of, clearly established Supreme Court law, not merely incorrect.
- The constitutional right to present a defense is subject to reasonable evidentiary limits serving legitimate trial interests, including rape-shield protections.
- A rape-shield exclusion does not violate the Constitution where the defense can still present its essential theory and the excluded evidence has limited incremental probative value.
- Supreme Court confrontation and defense-rights cases do not clearly establish a rule requiring admission of all relevant favorable evidence, particularly where the defense already introduced substantial related evidence.

## Conclusion

The en banc court held that, given AEDPA deference and the breadth of consent-related evidence admitted at trial, Michigan’s exclusion of two additional sexual-history incidents did not amount to an objectively unreasonable application of clearly established Supreme Court law, so habeas relief was unavailable.


Gagne v. Booker, 680 F.3d 493 (6th Cir. 2012)