Can defendants compel victim testimony at rule 412 hearings? State v. Jolley Explained

Background and Facts

In State v. Jolley, defendant Seth Clark Jolley was charged with rape and sought to introduce evidence of prior sexual conduct with the alleged victim T.T. under rule 412 of the Utah Rules of Evidence. Jolley filed a motion requesting an in camera hearing to determine the admissibility of evidence regarding specific instances of past sexual behavior between him and T.T. The district court granted the motion and ordered T.T. to testify at the rule 412 hearing, reasoning that “the purpose of the 412 hearing is so that the court can identify the evidence” needed for trial consideration.

Key Legal Issues

The central issue was whether rule 412 allows a defendant to compel a victim to testify at a rule 412 hearing. T.T. argued that the rule only gives victims “a right” to attend and be heard, not an obligation to testify about sensitive sexual history. Jolley contended he needed T.T.’s testimony to “figure out what the evidence is going to be” and enable the court to evaluate the evidence’s admissibility.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The Utah Supreme Court reversed, holding that defendants cannot compel victim testimony at rule 412 hearings. The court emphasized that rule 412 requires the moving party to “specifically describe the evidence” in their motion before the hearing. The hearing’s purpose under rule 412(c)(3) is to “give the victim and parties a right to attend and be heard” regarding the admissibility of already-identified evidence, not to allow discovery of evidence from the victim. The court rejected the notion that rule 412 hearings are designed to uncover or test evidence, distinguishing them from general evidentiary hearings.

Practice Implications

This decision clarifies that rule 412 motions must contain specific descriptions of the evidence sought to be admitted, eliminating any expectation that victims can be compelled to provide testimony at the hearing. Practitioners should prepare comprehensive motions detailing the specific instances of sexual behavior and their relevance to defenses like consent. The ruling reinforces rule 412’s protective purpose as a rape shield rule, ensuring victims are not subjected to unwarranted inquiries that could deter participation in prosecutions.