Limitation on Compelling Victim Testimony at Rape Shield Hearings

Introduction

State of Utah v. Seth Clark Jolley, 2025 UT 9, is an interlocutory appeal decided by the Utah Supreme Court on April 10, 2025. The core issue is whether a defendant may use Utah Rule of Evidence 412—the statutory “rape shield” rule—to compel an alleged victim, here identified as T.T., to appear and testify in camera at a pretrial hearing about her prior sexual behavior with the defendant. Seth Clark Jolley is charged with criminal sexual conduct; the State of Utah is the appellee; T.T. intervened as a limited-purpose party. The Fourth District Court of Juab County granted Jolley’s motion to hold a Rule 412 hearing and ordered T.T. to testify. T.T. moved to quash the subpoena; the district court denied that motion. She then obtained interlocutory review in the Utah Supreme Court.

This decision clarifies the proper scope and purpose of a Rule 412 hearing, reaffirms the protective goals of the rape shield rule, and sets a binding precedent that a party seeking admission of a victim’s sexual history under Rule 412(b) may not compel the victim to testify at the threshold admissibility hearing.

Summary of the Judgment

The Utah Supreme Court reversed the district court’s order compelling T.T. to testify at the Rule 412(c) in camera hearing. Justice Pohlman, writing for a unanimous court, held that:

1. Rule 412(c)(3) entitles a victim to attend the in camera hearing and be heard on the admissibility of evidence, but does not authorize the defendant to subpoena the victim to testify about her sexual history.
2. The moving party (here, Jolley) bears the burden under Rule 412(c)(1) to describe with specificity the evidence it intends to offer under a Rule 412(b) exception; it may not shift that burden to the victim by compelling testimony at the hearing.
3. Both the plain language of Rule 412 and the rule’s protective purposes confirm that a pretrial hearing is for legal argument and court ruling, not for cross-examining the victim as a discovery method.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court reversed the district court’s denial of T.T.’s motion to quash and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

• State v. Tarrats, 2005 UT 50: Adoption of Rule 412 to exclude evidence of a victim’s other sexual behavior absent narrow exceptions, to avoid jury distractions and to protect victims from unwanted inquiries.
• State v. Blake, 2002 UT 113: Denial of Rule 412 hearing when purpose was to discover evidence and test victim’s testimony—hearing not a discovery tool.
• State v. Bravo, 2015 UT App 17: Motion under Rule 412(c)(1) must describe with specificity the evidence so the court can assess probative value versus prejudice under Rule 403.
• State v. Clark, 2009 UT App 252: Rule 412 does not apply to allegations of false prior sexual-assault claims; such situations may warrant a separate evidentiary hearing.
• State v. Eddington, 2023 UT App 19: Victim testimony at a post-trial Rule 23B hearing, which differs from a Rule 412 pretrial hearing, and does not address compelling testimony under Rule 412.

Legal Reasoning

The Court’s analysis centers on the three-step procedure in Rule 412(c):

1. Rule 412(c)(1): The defendant must file a motion “specifically describ[ing] the evidence” and its purpose, at least 14 days before trial. This description creates a concrete record of the precise incidents the defendant seeks to admit under a (b) exception.
2. Rule 412(c)(2): The victim must receive timely notice and an opportunity to respond.
3. Rule 412(c)(3): Before admission, the court “must conduct an in camera hearing and give the victim and parties a right to attend and be heard,” and the hearing record is protected unless the court orders otherwise.

The plain language of (c)(3) guarantees a victim’s right to attend and be heard; it does not grant the defendant a right to subpoena the victim for testimony. The moving party’s burden is to identify the evidence in advance—if the motion is specific enough, the hearing proceeds to legal argument. The Court rejected the district court’s view that the hearing’s purpose is to “identify the evidence” by questioning the victim, emphasizing that “a rule 412 hearing is not a discovery tool.” Compelling testimony would undermine the rule’s protective design, risk embarrassment, and deter victims from participating in prosecutions.

The Court distinguished Clark and Eddington, finding neither supports using Rule 412 to compel a victim’s testimony at the admissibility hearing. Beverly’s general discussion of evidentiary decision-making steps was also inapplicable because a Rule 412 hearing does not involve fact-finding on the truth or credibility of the evidence, but only legal determinations based on the motion’s allegations.

Impact

This decision has immediate and future significance in Utah criminal practice:

• Defendants must meet their burden through written motions that carefully describe each instance of past sexual behavior they wish to admit, without reliance on in camera viva voce testimony from the victim.
• Courtroom procedure for Rule 412 hearings is clarified: hearings focus on legal argument and the judge’s admissibility ruling, not on live testimony by the victim.
• The protective purpose of Rule 412—to shield victims from invasive pretrial questioning—receives strong reinforcement and deters misuse of subpoena power.
• Lower courts and practitioners will adjust pretrial strategy, emphasizing precision in drafting Rule 412 motions and preserving victims’ rights without subjecting them to unnecessary testimony.

Complex Concepts Simplified

• Rape Shield Rule (Rule 412): Bars evidence of a victim’s “other sexual behavior” or “sexual predisposition” in sexual-misconduct trials, with narrow exceptions (e.g., specific prior conduct with the accused to prove consent, or constitutional necessity).
• In Camera Hearing: A closed session in the judge’s chambers (not in open court) where parties argue legal issues away from public view; evidence and transcripts are protected.
• Moving Party’s Burden: Under Rule 412(c)(1), the defendant must detail the precise incidents sought to be admitted; the hearing is not for uncovering or testing those incidents.
• Discovery vs. Admissibility: Discovery tools (depositions, subpoenas) differ from admissibility hearings. Rule 412 pretrial hearings resolve legal objections, not fact-finding or cross-examination of the victim.

Conclusion

State v. Jolley establishes a clear controlling precedent: a defendant seeking to introduce evidence of a victim’s prior sexual behavior under a Rule 412(b) exception may not compel the victim to testify at the Rule 412 in camera hearing. The burden remains on the moving party to describe the evidence with specificity in writing; the hearing itself is reserved for legal argument and the court’s admissibility determination. By reversing the district court’s order and quashing the subpoena, the Utah Supreme Court reinforces the protective purpose of the rape shield rule and safeguards victims from intrusive pretrial questioning. This decision will guide future pretrial practice and ensure Rule 412 serves its intended function: balancing the defendant’s right to present a defense with the victim’s right to privacy and to be free from unwarranted invasions of her sexual history.