In State V

Multiple Choice

In State v. Jackson, in a sexual assault case, the defendant's position was that he and the alleged victim exchanged crack cocaine for sexual favors instead of him being a sexual aggressor. The trial judge refused to allow the defendant to impeach statements by the victim that she had not used crack cocaine before or after the night in question because drug use was not relevant to the issue of consent. There was proof that the victim had indeed used crack cocaine on numerous occasions including the night in question. The defendant contended that the victim's drug use on prior occasions and on the night in question was relevant because it went to the issue of whether the victim traded sexual favors for crack cocaine. On appeal, the reviewing court determined:

A) that whether the alleged victim smoked crack cocaine before or after the alleged sexual activity would have no relevance to the issue of consent for sexual contact and the conviction should stand.
B) that the alleged victim's drug use in days prior to and days after the alleged incident was logically and legally relevant to the defendant's contention that she consented to sexual activity in order to obtain crack cocaine from the defendant. Because of this error, the verdict had to be reversed.
C) that the use of drugs by an alleged victim would have had no effect on her judgment concerning whether to give consent or withhold consent for sexual activities, and was therefore irrelevant.
D) that the defendant's desire to introduce evidence of drug activity on behalf of the victim was not legally relevant because such evidence would be introduced only to spare the victim's reputation, not to call into question her truthfulness, and thus the case was properly decided.