## Facts

- John Doe, a 13-year-old minor, was proceeded against in Hawaiʻi family court based on an allegation that he had sexual intercourse with a 19-year-old woman on February 24, 1991.
- The State charged conduct equivalent to second-degree sexual assault under Haw. Rev. Stat. § 707-731(1), alleging Doe knowingly subjected the complainant to sexual penetration while she was “mentally defective, mentally incapacitated, or physically helpless.”
- The State relied on expert psychological testimony that the complainant was mentally retarded/mentally defective and could not fully comprehend the sexual acts in which she engaged.
- To challenge the State’s proof of the complainant’s alleged mental defect and her understanding of sexual activity, the defense sought to introduce evidence that:
  - The complainant was in a relationship with an older man (about 40 years old); and
  - The complainant had been taking birth control pills, suggesting knowledge of sex and pregnancy prevention.
- The defense also sought to cross-examine the State’s expert psychologist about specific information and materials the expert relied on in forming the opinion that the complainant was mentally defective.
- The family court ruled that the State did not have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Doe knew the complainant was mentally defective (or otherwise incapacitated/helpless).
- The family court excluded the defense’s proposed evidence about the complainant’s relationship and birth-control use under Hawaiʻi’s rape-shield law and limited cross-examination of the State’s expert about the bases for the opinion.
- Doe was adjudicated a law violator, and he appealed to the Intermediate Court of Appeals of Hawaiʻi.

## Issues

1. Whether, under Haw. Rev. Stat. § 707-731(1), the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant knew the complainant was “mentally defective, mentally incapacitated, or physically helpless.”
2. Whether the family court erred by limiting cross-examination of the State’s expert about information relied upon for the mental-defect opinion and by excluding evidence (including birth-control use and an older relationship) offered to contest the complainant’s capacity, based on rape-shield restrictions.

## Decision

- The Intermediate Court of Appeals of Hawaiʻi vacated the family court’s judgment and remanded for a new trial.
- The court held the family court erred by ruling the State did not need to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Doe knew of the complainant’s mental defect (or comparable condition) for liability under § 707-731(1).
- The court held the family court erred by preventing meaningful cross-examination of the State’s expert psychologist concerning information the expert relied upon in concluding the complainant was mentally defective.
- The court held the family court erred by barring defense cross-examination of the complainant about her use of birth control pills to prevent pregnancy when offered to contest her mental capacity, and that rape-shield rules could not be applied as a categorical bar to that capacity-related evidence.

## Legal Principles

- When an offense definition includes a culpable mental state (such as “knowingly”), that mental state applies to material elements, including circumstance elements, unless the legislature clearly indicates otherwise.
- For second-degree sexual assault charged under Haw. Rev. Stat. § 707-731(1) based on the complainant’s mental defect/incapacity/helplessness, the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was aware of that condition.
- A defendant must be allowed reasonable cross-examination of an opposing expert about the facts, data, and sources the expert relied on, especially when the opinion supplies proof of an element the State must establish.
- Rape-shield restrictions generally limit evidence of a complainant’s prior sexual behavior, but they do not justify excluding evidence offered for a non-character purpose—such as showing the complainant’s understanding of sexual conduct and pregnancy—when that evidence bears on an element in dispute and on the fairness of the trial.

## Conclusion

Because the family court relieved the State of proving Doe’s knowledge of the complainant’s qualifying condition and improperly restricted defense cross-examination aimed at testing the complainant’s alleged mental defect (including inquiry into the expert’s basis and the complainant’s birth-control use), the Intermediate Court of Appeals vacated the adjudication and remanded for a new trial with correct mens rea requirements and evidentiary rulings.


In the Interest of John Doe, 918 P.2d 254 (1996)