## Facts

- Lee Franklin DeLawder was tried in the Circuit Court for Montgomery County for carnal knowledge of a female under age 14.
- The State’s case depended heavily on the credibility of the prosecutrix.
- The defense theory was that the prosecutrix had engaged in sexual intercourse with other males, believed she might be pregnant from those encounters, feared disclosure to her mother, and therefore accused DeLawder to deflect blame.
- Defense counsel sought to cross-examine the prosecutrix about prior sexual conduct and her pregnancy-related fears to show bias and an ulterior motive to fabricate.
- The trial court restricted this line of cross-examination, reasoning that in a statutory rape-type prosecution consent is not an element and prior sexual history is generally irrelevant; only limited questioning tied to medical evidence of recent intercourse was allowed.
- A jury convicted DeLawder, and he received a 15-year sentence; the conviction was affirmed on direct appeal.
- In post-conviction proceedings, DeLawder argued the cross-examination limits violated the Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause under Davis v. Alaska (decided after his trial).
- The post-conviction court ultimately vacated the conviction and ordered a new trial; the State appealed that order.

## Issues

1. Whether restricting cross-examination of the prosecutrix about prior sexual conduct and pregnancy-related fears violated the Sixth Amendment right to confront and impeach a key witness for bias or motive to fabricate.
2. If a confrontation violation occurred, whether Davis v. Alaska applied retroactively in post-conviction review to a conviction final before Davis was decided.

## Decision

- The Court of Special Appeals of Maryland affirmed the post-conviction order granting a new trial.
- The court held that the restriction on cross-examination infringed the defendant’s constitutional right to effective cross-examination where the excluded inquiry was directed to possible bias, prejudice, or ulterior motive.
- The court held Davis v. Alaska applied retroactively in Maryland post-conviction proceedings because it enforces a fundamental Sixth Amendment confrontation right.
- The court treated the error as constitutional and not harmless given the centrality of the prosecutrix’s credibility.

## Legal Principles

- The Confrontation Clause protects cross-examination aimed at exposing a witness’s motivation to testify, including bias, prejudice, or ulterior motive.
- Even in prosecutions where consent is not an element and sexual-history evidence is ordinarily immaterial, a defendant may be constitutionally entitled to inquire into a complainant’s prior sexual conduct when the purpose is to show a concrete motive to fabricate rather than to prove consent or general unchastity.
- Protecting a witness from embarrassment or reputational harm cannot justify barring otherwise appropriate cross-examination necessary for the jury to assess reliability.
- A Supreme Court decision enforcing core confrontation rights may apply retroactively on collateral review when earlier proceedings denied constitutionally required cross-examination.

## Conclusion

The court held that limiting cross-examination that was directed to the complainant’s possible motive to fabricate violated the Sixth Amendment right of confrontation, and it applied Davis v. Alaska retroactively to sustain post-conviction relief vacating the conviction and ordering a new trial.


State v. DeLawder, 28 Md. App. 212, 344 A.2d 446 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 1975)