## Facts

- Richard White and Adrian White were jointly tried for raping a female complainant.
- The defense contended the encounter was consensual and that the complainant fabricated the accusation.
- Defendants testified the complainant asked them to obtain cocaine, they could not obtain as much as she wanted, and she acted sexually suggestively toward them.
- To support a motive-to-fabricate theory, defendants sought third-party testimony that, on a separate earlier occasion, the complainant offered to trade sex for drugs.
- Defendants offered the evidence to show bias and motive: anger over insufficient drugs and a reason to accuse them of rape to conceal drug use and socializing with other men from her fiancé.
- The trial court excluded the third-party testimony under Maryland’s rape-shield statute; defendants were convicted.
- The intermediate appellate court affirmed; the Court of Appeals granted review.

## Issues

1. Whether an alleged prior offer to trade sex for drugs constitutes “sexual conduct” within Maryland’s rape-shield statute.
2. Whether excluding such evidence, when offered to show bias or motive to fabricate, violates constitutional rights to confront witnesses and present a defense.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeals held that an offer to trade sex for drugs falls within “sexual conduct” covered by the rape-shield statute.
- The Court further held that the rape-shield statute cannot be applied categorically where exclusion would infringe constitutional trial rights.
- The Court concluded the trial court erred by excluding the proffer without an adequate, case-specific assessment of its probative value on bias/motive and its prejudicial effect.
- The judgment affirming the convictions was reversed and the case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with these requirements.

## Legal Principles

- “Sexual conduct” under Maryland’s rape-shield statute includes offers or negotiations to exchange sex for drugs.
- Evidence within the rape-shield statute may still be admissible when necessary to protect the defendant’s constitutional rights, including confrontation and the right to present a defense.
- Prior sexual-conduct evidence may be admitted for a non-character purpose—such as showing bias, motive to fabricate, or credibility—when it is highly probative and its probative value is not substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice or jury confusion.
- Trial courts must conduct a concrete, record-based balancing analysis rather than treating the rape-shield statute as a per se bar.

## Conclusion

The court recognized that Maryland’s rape-shield statute broadly covers sex-for-drugs offers, but it must yield when rigid application would bar highly probative evidence of bias or motive to fabricate that is necessary for confrontation and a meaningful defense; the convictions were reversed and remanded for proper admissibility analysis.


White v. State, 598 A.2d 187 (Md. 1991)