finding that when a party consents to sexual contact “there [can] be no sexual assault. . . . [And,] we either had a sexual assault, or we did not.”
How later courts described this case
- finding that when a party consents to sexual contact “there [can] be no sexual assault. . . . [And,] we either had a sexual assault, or we did not.”
- holding statements made by hospital’s agents within the scope of their employment were admissible under hearsay exception for admissions of parties
- stating “An appellate court is without authority to review issues not raised in or decided by the trial court.”
- “[A]n instruction is erroneous if it assumes or has the appearance of assuming an essential fact concerning disputed evidence.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
SCHRODER, Justice,
Concurring in Result only.
I disagree with the majority’s view that evidence of Brooks’ sexual promiscuity, past sexual behavior and that she liked sex too much was relevant to the issue of damages. This presumes that a woman who is more sexually active and/or promiscuous will be less affected by being raped and suffer fewer damages. I believe this type of evidence was what the Rape Shield Law was enacted to exclude.
MINTON, C.J.; joins this opinion.