## Facts

- Kenneth Wood was convicted in Alaska state court of raping an adult woman, M.G., after an April 11, 1984 encounter.
- Wood and M.G. had known each other for roughly six months; they disputed whether their relationship was sexual (Wood) or platonic with one limited incident (M.G.).
- Before trial, the state court entered a protective order excluding evidence that M.G. posed for *Penthouse*, performed in X-rated films and other sexual performances, and showed Wood the photographs and discussed those experiences with him.
- The trial court excluded the evidence under Alaska’s relevance/rape-shield framework, finding the prejudicial effect outweighed any probative value.
- Wood was allowed to present other evidence supporting his consent theory, including his testimony describing an ongoing sexual relationship and witnesses who supported his characterization of the relationship.

## Issues

1. Whether excluding evidence of M.G.’s pornography-related modeling/performances and her related communications with Wood violated Wood’s Sixth Amendment rights to confront the complainant and present a defense, warranting federal habeas relief.

## Decision

- The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of Wood’s habeas petition.
- The court held that excluding the challenged evidence did not violate the Sixth Amendment.
- The court concluded the complainant’s pornography-related history was not relevant in itself, and her communications about it had only limited probative value regarding the relationship.
- The state court could reasonably find the evidence’s prejudicial effect outweighed its limited probative value.
- Because Wood had ample opportunity to present his consent theory through other testimony and cross-examination, the exclusion did not render the trial fundamentally unfair.

## Legal Principles

- The Sixth Amendment rights to confrontation and to present a defense are not absolute and may be limited by legitimate evidentiary rules, including rape-shield protections and prejudice/probative-value balancing.
- Evidence of a complainant’s prior sexual conduct may be excluded without violating the Constitution where it is marginally probative, highly prejudicial, and risks distracting the jury.
- On habeas review, an evidentiary exclusion warrants relief only if it significantly undermines the defense so as to make the trial fundamentally unfair.
- A defendant has no constitutional right to introduce every item of evidence he deems helpful when reasonable alternatives remain to present the substance of the defense.

## Conclusion

The Ninth Circuit held that Alaska’s exclusion of pornography-related evidence about the complainant, and her related discussions with Wood, was a permissible application of rape-shield and prejudice balancing that did not materially impair Wood’s ability to confront M.G. or present his consent defense; habeas relief was properly denied.


Wood v. Alaska, 957 F.2d 1544 (9th Cir. 1992)