South Dakota Senate Panel Endorses Bills Allowing Prior Sexual Assault Evidence in Rape Trials

Introduction:
In a pivotal decision, a state Senate panel in South Dakota has taken steps to potentially revolutionize rape trials by endorsing two bills aimed at introducing evidence of previous sexual assault allegations. The bills, Senate Bills 97 and 98, seek to amend the state’s rules of evidence to enable the inclusion of prior sexual assault incidents, even in cases without convictions, if deemed relevant by a judge.

Supporters’ Perspective:
Proponents of the bills argue that their enactment is long overdue, citing federal rules that already permit such evidence. They emphasize the necessity of providing prosecutors with essential tools to effectively pursue sexual assault cases, where the victim’s character often comes under unwarranted scrutiny. Pennington County State’s Attorney Lara Roetzel’s testimony highlighted a compelling case that underscores the need for admitting “propensity” evidence in rape trials.

Opponents’ Concerns:
However, opponents of the bills, including Senator David Wheeler, a defense lawyer, express apprehension about the potential ramifications. They caution against shifting the focus of trials from determining guilt to judging a defendant’s character. Concerns are raised about the inclusion of hearsay evidence, with opponents warning of the dangers of unverified accusations leading to miscarriages of justice.

Debating Hearsay Evidence:
One of the key points of contention revolves around the inclusion of hearsay evidence. Despite attempts to address concerns, such as requiring notice to defendants and judicial discretion in admitting evidence, opposition to the bills persists. The debate underscores the ethical considerations involved in reforming evidentiary rules in sexual assault cases.

Civil Cases and Unanimous Rejection:
In addition to the bills concerning criminal trials, a third bill, SB 149, aimed to allow prior sexual assault evidence in civil rape cases, albeit without hearsay. However, this bill faced unanimous rejection by the committee due to concerns about potential abuse, particularly in cases involving prominent individuals.