Ruling bars trial use of rape accuser’s past

An exotic dancer’s past conduct in front of the man accused of raping her while she was passed out in her home should be barred from being used against her at the defendant’s trial, the Supreme Court ruled Thursday.

The appeal to the high court came on a pretrial ruling in a rape case in Pulaski County. Miguel Cossio of North Little Rock faces a single charge of rape and a possible life sentence.

At a hearing in January, Cossio sought permission to introduce evidence about his experience with the accuser and another woman the night before the purported assault in July 2015.

Arkansas law, specifically code 16- 42- 101, prohibits an accuser’s previous sexual conduct from being presented in court, unless a judge rules it relevant to the case.

In court filings, Cossio’s attorneys argued that the woman’s behavior the night before — when Cossio drank with the woman as she helped teach dance techniques to another woman, Shauna Harrelson — would help prove whether the accuser was conscious after the next night of drinking, when Cossio and Harrelson were accused of assaulting the woman.

After the January hearing, Circuit Judge Herbert Wright ruled that testimony would be allowed as “prelude to the night of alleged activity,” according to court records.

In a 5- 2 opinion handed down Thursday, the Supreme Court reversed the lower court’s ruling that testimony about the woman’s conduct was relevant, and remanded the matter back to Wright’s court.

Wright’s ruling was “manifest abuse of discretion,” Justice Courtney Goodson wrote for the majority.

“The purpose of the rapeshield statute is to shield victims of rape or sexual abuse from the humiliation of having their sexual conduct, unrelated to the pending charges, paraded before the jury and the public when such conduct is irrelevant to the defendant’s guilt,” Goodson wrote.

“Cossio has simply failed to demonstrate how evidence of [ the victim’s] sexual conduct with Harrelson on the day before the offense is probative,” Goodson added.

However, two of the high court justices penned separate dissents stating the ac-cuser’s actions — lap dances with Harrelson — did not amount to “sexual conduct” under the law.

Relying on the woman’s testimony, justices Josephine Hart and Karen Baker said the dances did not result in “sexual gratification,” and therefore the events of that night were not protected by the rape- shield law.