## Facts

- T.D., age 10, made a sexualized remark during play that prompted questioning by her father and a referral to child-protection and law-enforcement authorities.
- T.D. reported that in July 1987, when she was nine, James G. Budis sexually penetrated her after taking her from a family swimming outing into an apartment.
- T.D. also reported that her former stepfather, H.D., had sexually abused her multiple times in 1986; H.D. later pled guilty to sexual assault and aggravated sexual assault.
- Budis was indicted and tried for two counts of sexual penetration of a child under 13.
- At trial, T.D. testified to two incidents involving oral and vaginal penetration by Budis.
- Budis denied intercourse but testified that T.D. initiated oral sex on two occasions and that he stopped it almost immediately.
- The defense sought to introduce evidence of H.D.’s prior sexual abuse of T.D. to explain her sexual knowledge and to support Budis’s account concerning initiation and credibility.
- The trial court excluded the H.D. evidence under the rape-shield statute, allowing only a brief, indirect reference that a detective had investigated allegations involving the stepfather.
- The jury convicted Budis on both counts, and the court imposed concurrent 15-year sentences.

## Issues

1. Whether excluding evidence of the complainant’s prior sexual abuse by another adult under the rape-shield statute violated the defendant’s rights to confrontation and to present a defense by preventing the jury from hearing evidence central to sexual knowledge and credibility.

## Decision

- The Appellate Division reversed the convictions and remanded for a new trial.
- The court held that the trial court’s categorical construction of the rape-shield statute improperly excluded crucial defense evidence.
- Because the exclusion affected the core defense theory, the error was not harmless.
- Other appellate claims were rendered moot by the reversal.

## Legal Principles

- Rape-shield protections are not absolute and must be applied consistently with a defendant’s constitutional rights, including confrontation and the right to present a defense.
- Evidence of a complainant’s prior sexual victimization by another adult is not automatically barred when offered for a legitimate, non-character purpose, such as explaining sexual knowledge or bearing on credibility.
- Trial courts must conduct a case-specific relevance and prejudice assessment; a categorical exclusion of materially probative evidence that is central to the defense can deny a fair trial.

## Conclusion

The court ordered a new trial because excluding evidence of the child complainant’s prior sexual abuse prevented the defense from presenting a materially probative explanation for her sexual knowledge and from meaningfully challenging credibility, resulting in an unfair trial despite the rape-shield statute’s protective aims.


State v. Budis, 580 A.2d 283 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1990)