## Facts

- Ivan Bennett Willis was federally charged with aggravated sexual abuse of 17-year-old K.M.
- Willis admitted that he had sex with K.M., but claimed the sex was consensual; the disputed trial question was whether Willis used force.
- Before trial, Willis moved to introduce evidence about K.M.’s sexual behavior earlier the same night, including that she had sex with her boyfriend while babysitting at her cousin’s home.
- Willis sought to admit portions of K.M.’s sexual-assault examination report showing semen on K.M.’s underwear matched DNA from both K.M.’s boyfriend and Willis.
- Willis argued the evidence showed K.M. had a reason to accuse him of rape: she did not want her boyfriend to learn she had sex with Willis, and she did not want her cousin (and the cousin’s boyfriend) to learn she had sex at their house while babysitting.
- The district court denied Willis’s motion and excluded the evidence under the rape-shield rule.
- At trial, defense counsel cross-examined K.M. about whether her cousin and the cousin’s boyfriend would be disappointed if they learned she had consensual sex with Willis, and K.M. agreed they would.
- K.M.’s cousin also testified that she would be upset if she learned K.M. and Willis had consensual sex.
- The jury convicted Willis, and he appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.

## Issues

1. Whether the district court erred under Federal Rule of Evidence 412 by excluding evidence that K.M. had sex with her boyfriend earlier the same night and that the sexual-assault exam reflected DNA from both the boyfriend and Willis.
2. Whether excluding that evidence violated Willis’s Sixth Amendment rights to confront witnesses and present a complete defense by limiting his ability to show K.M.’s alleged motive to fabricate the rape claim.

## Decision

- The Tenth Circuit affirmed Willis’s conviction.
- The court held the district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding the proffered sexual-history evidence under Rule 412.
- The court concluded Willis’s constitutional-rights arguments failed because the defense was permitted to cross-examine K.M. and other witnesses about possible embarrassment and disapproval without introducing specific evidence of prior sexual activity and DNA results.
- The court determined that, given the narrow dispute at trial (force versus consent), the excluded evidence had limited probative value and carried the type of prejudice and distraction Rule 412 is designed to prevent.

## Legal Principles

- Federal Rule of Evidence 412 generally bars evidence offered to prove a victim’s other sexual behavior or sexual predisposition in sexual-misconduct cases.
- In a criminal case, Rule 412 allows limited exceptions, including evidence whose exclusion would violate the defendant’s constitutional rights, but the defendant must show the evidence is sufficiently probative and tied to a real defense theory rather than speculation.
- Trial courts may restrict inquiry into a complainant’s sexual history to avoid unfair prejudice, confusion, and harassment, so long as the defendant retains a meaningful opportunity to test credibility through cross-examination on permissible topics.
- Appellate review of a district court’s Rule 412 ruling is for abuse of discretion; constitutional questions are reviewed under the standards governing confrontation and the right to present a defense, with room for reasonable limits on the manner and scope of impeachment.

## Conclusion

United States v. Willis, 826 F.3d 1265 (10th Cir. 2016), affirmed a federal aggravated-sexual-abuse conviction after the district court excluded evidence that the complainant had sex with her boyfriend earlier the same night and that the sexual-assault exam reflected DNA from both men. The Tenth Circuit held the exclusion fit within Rule 412’s rape-shield protections and did not violate the Sixth Amendment because Willis was still able to pursue his theory that K.M. feared negative reactions to consensual sex with him through other testimony, without introducing detailed sexual-history and DNA evidence that offered limited value on the disputed element of force.


United States v. Willis, 826 F.3d 1265 (2016)