# Statutory Rape. How deep does the rabbit hole go? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [May 20, 2004, 6:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/statutory-rape-how-deep-does-the-rabbit-hole-go/246135 "2004-05-20T06:17:37Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 10\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![alaricthegoth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4bbf92/32.png) [@alaricthegoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/alaricthegoth)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2004, 8:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/statutory-rape-how-deep-does-the-rabbit-hole-go/246135/101 "2004-05-24T20:26:31Z")
> [@Gfactor](#): > > šŸ˜ƒ > **Hamlet** , do the cases and statutes really say that the evidence is inadmissible, or do they say that it is not relevant as a defense. I suspect it is the latter, in which case I doubt the objection would be sustained. The judge, after all, will be instructing the jury that the defendantā€™s state of mind is not to be considered. Where is the prejudice? > > **chula** , again, how is the jury being prejudiced? And lying about your age in order to induce someone to have illlegal sex with you? Iā€™m not so sure it is a white lie. Possessing a fake ID is a crime, and hence, quite serious. This is not a case of false modesty, but deception, fraud even. > > I could see a judge going either way on it. The documents cannot come through the back door of impeachment re:credibility because the victimā€™s credibility is not an issue in a prospective defense of good faith errorā€¦the only affirmative proposition on which her credibility might be an issue is the corpus itself, which is conceded for purposes of what I suppose is a mens rea (not) defense. ---
**Author:** ![Gfactor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/9de053/32.png) [@Gfactor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gfactor)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2004, 9:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/statutory-rape-how-deep-does-the-rabbit-hole-go/246135/102 "2004-05-24T21:08:29Z")
> [@alaricthegoth](#): > > The documents cannot come through the back door of impeachment re:credibility because the victimā€™s credibility is not an issue in a prospective defense of good faith errorā€¦the only affirmative proposition on which her credibility might be an issue is the corpus itself, which is conceded for purposes of what I suppose is a mens rea (not) defense. Huh? I think we have established that good faith error is not a defense. So my examples certainly assumed that the defense, being unavailabe, was not being asserted. We were discussing ways of getting false representations into evidence despite the lack of such a defense. ---
**Author:** ![ouryL](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ouryl/32/6067_2.png) [@ouryL](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ouryL)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2004, 6:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/statutory-rape-how-deep-does-the-rabbit-hole-go/246135/103 "2004-05-25T06:17:08Z")
> [@1010011010](#): > > Is being a victim of fraud a sufficient argument against statutory rape? > > Not of the ā€œWell, I met her in a bar and she was drinking, so I guess she had to be 21, right?ā€ variety. Iā€™m talking that youā€™ve done the improbable and asked for picture identification and a notarized copy of her birth certificateā€¦ all establish her age as 21ā€¦ but theyā€™re all forgeries, and sheā€™s really 15. Better yet, just the birth certificate is a forgery. The drivers liscense she showed you was real, issued by your state of residence, on the forged birth certificate. Is there any point at which you cease to be liableā€¦ or are you subject to the mercy of the DA choosing not to prosecute? Bad, bad, bad, bad, bad, bad, bad, bad, bad, bad, bad, bad, bad, bad, bad, bad, bad, bad, bad, bad, bad, bad, bad, bad joke. You mean "How deep does the bunny hole go? ---
**Author:** ![Gfactor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/9de053/32.png) [@Gfactor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gfactor)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2004, 12:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/statutory-rape-how-deep-does-the-rabbit-hole-go/246135/104 "2004-05-26T12:56:11Z")
Well, here is a case where a court excluded evidence that the complaining witness used false identification. The evidence was offered for impeachment in a forcible rape trial. [http://www.utcourts.gov/opinions/supopin/gomez2.htm](http://www.utcourts.gov/opinions/supopin/gomez2.htm) ---
**Author:** ![Hamlet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hamlet/32/2818_2.png) [@Hamlet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hamlet)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2004, 2:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/statutory-rape-how-deep-does-the-rabbit-hole-go/246135/105 "2004-05-27T14:51:07Z")
> [@Mr. Excellent](#): > > Mind if I take a stab at it? Iā€™m not a lawyer, but this is fun. šŸ™‚ > > Well, we have a Sixth Amendment right to confront witnesses against us, right? And the purpose of that confrontation is fundamentally to either impeach the witness, or ellicit information that weakens the case of the prosecution. So couldnā€™t the argument be made that ā€œstrict liabilityā€ laws which donā€™t allow you to ask questions of the complainant like ā€œDidnā€™t you show me a liscence that said you were 18?ā€ consitutes such a grievous restriction on your right to confront a witness against you that it defeats the intent of the sixth amendment? n Am I correct in assuming that you meant to argue that a law that limits a defendantā€™s ability to cross examine the victim in a statutory rape case about her misrepresentations of age violates the Confrontation Clause of the Constitution? Iā€™m not so sure thatā€™s the point **ascenray** was making, but Iā€™ll take a stab at it. You are correct that the challenges to a defendantā€™s rightā€™s on cross-examination is founded on his Sixth Amendment right of confrontation. In Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. 673, SCOTUS stated: > [@](#): > > a criminal defendant states a violation of the Confrontation Clause by showing that he was prohibited from engaging in otherwise appropriate cross-examination designed to show a prototypical form of bias on the part of the witness, and thereby ā€˜to expose to the jury the facts from which jurors ā€¦ could appropriately draw inferences relating to the reliability of the witness.ā€™ However, the confrontation clause does have limits. The trial court: > [@](#): > > may, of course, impose reasonable limits on defense counselā€™s inquiry into the potential bias of a prosecution witness, to take account of such factors as "harassment, prejudice, confusion of the issues, the witnessā€™ safety, or interrogation that [would be] repetitive or only marginally relevant, So, youā€™re absolutely right that the right to cross examination implicates the Sixth Amendment, and has a Constitutional basis. However, I donā€™t think that was **ascenray** ā€™s point, and there are limits to itā€™s use. ---
**Author:** ![alaricthegoth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4bbf92/32.png) [@alaricthegoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/alaricthegoth)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2004, 12:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/statutory-rape-how-deep-does-the-rabbit-hole-go/246135/106 "2004-05-28T00:40:11Z")
> [@Gfactor](#): > > Huh? I think we have established that good faith error is not a defense. So my examples certainly assumed that the defense, being unavailabe, was not being asserted. We were discussing ways of getting false representations into evidence despite the lack of such a defense. got it. presumably then thereā€™s a forcible charged;, and prospect of instructing on statutory as a lesser included? So they have to prove her age, which then makes her earlier fraud a prior inconsistent as to truth of the matter stated. I donā€™t think it could come in otherwise, ie as a ā€œgeneral veracityā€ issue. in other words, somehow you have to make her sworn statement re:her present age (and hence her age as calculated to the date of the incident) relevant. query:can a prosecutor join statutory and forcible in the same indictment? Or does it have to be a lesser included component of the forcible whenever the complainant is a minor? ---
**Author:** ![alaricthegoth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4bbf92/32.png) [@alaricthegoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/alaricthegoth)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2004, 12:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/statutory-rape-how-deep-does-the-rabbit-hole-go/246135/107 "2004-05-28T00:51:30Z")
> [@Gfactor](#): > > Well, here is a case where a court excluded evidence that the complaining witness used false identification. The evidence was offered for impeachment in a forcible rape trial. > > [State of Utah v. Gomez](http://www.utcourts.gov/opinions/supopin/gomez2.htm) It is unclear from the statement of facts, bu I think the complainant was too young to drink, but not too young to fuck. there is not a factual nexus to tie her age related misrepresentation to a bouncer re:over 21 to get in and drink with an (argued) misrepresentation as to the consensual nature of the sex. I think if her age were at issue for some charged component of liability, and you defend on tht fact, you could, maybe, get the false id at the bar in. But that really isnt any good to us in this case. Weā€™re actually looking for back door sympathy on a statuitory charge. For that, the misrepresentation must be to the defendant ---
**Author:** ![Gfactor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/9de053/32.png) [@Gfactor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gfactor)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2004, 1:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/statutory-rape-how-deep-does-the-rabbit-hole-go/246135/108 "2004-05-28T01:08:27Z")
> [@alaricthegoth](#): > > But that really isnt any good to us in this case. Weā€™re actually looking for back door sympathy on a statuitory charge. For that, the misrepresentation must be to the defendant Right. But I couldnā€™t find any cases like that online. I included this case to show that at least one court agrees with those who have argued that the probative value of misrepresenting oneā€™s age is outweighed by the risk of unfair prejudice. Even though, in that case, the possible prejudice is murkier than in this case. There is no risk that the jury will invent a mistake of age defense for the defendant because age is not an issue. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2004, 2:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/statutory-rape-how-deep-does-the-rabbit-hole-go/246135/109 "2004-05-28T02:14:10Z")
> [@alaricthegoth](#): > > query:can a prosecutor join statutory and forcible in the same indictment? Or does it have to be a lesser included component of the forcible whenever the complainant is a minor? Itā€™s not a lesser-included offense. Blockburger analysis ā€“ they are two separate crimes, since each requires proof of an element that the other does not. ---
**Author:** ![Gfactor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/9de053/32.png) [@Gfactor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gfactor)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2004, 11:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/statutory-rape-how-deep-does-the-rabbit-hole-go/246135/110 "2004-05-28T11:20:31Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Itā€™s not a lesser-included offense. Blockburger analysis ā€“ they are two separate crimes, since each requires proof of an element that the other does not. What he said. Shoot I havenā€™t thought about Blockburger analysis in some time. . . [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/statutory-rape-how-deep-does-the-rabbit-hole-go/246135.md?page=5)