The South Dakota House kills a bill that would allow the use of prior actions of a defendant as evidence in sex crime trials.
In federal court, prior actions of an accused sexual offender are admissible for use – but not in South Dakota state courts. In some situations, that includes prior sex crime convictions.
Opponents leveled legal arguments against the bill. Sioux Falls Republican Rep. Chris Karr said this could mean false accusations leading to convictions.
“They said the new rules could diminish significantly the protections that have safeguarded persons accused in criminal cases, parties in civil cases, against undue prejudice," Karr said. "If somebody does something wrong, let’s take care of it, put them in jail and protect society. But you know what’s even more important? Is that we don’t convict innocent people, based on some past accusations or past behavior.”
However, the bill’s proponents say it’s a matter of fairness to victims. House prime sponsor Rep. Becky Drury, a Rapid City Republican, said it’s a matter of closing a legal double standard.
“You can bring in the woman’s background, her past dating, where she goes for entertainment – all of these things – but not for the defendant," Drury said. "In federal court you can. If it’s fair to bring a woman’s behavior, past acts, into open court to be used as part of the proceedings, why can we not do the same thing you can do in the federal court?”
Drury said the legal argument falls flat.
“It’s not mandatory, this is all at the judge’s discretion whether these prior acts can be brought in," Drury said. "Even one of the comments was ‘it’s not constitutional.’ Well, if they’re doing it in the Eighth Circuit Court now, I would say it’s constitutional. You look at this and you wonder why more women don’t come forward. Why would you?”
Drury specified male victims would have the same rights in court as female victims.
While the bill was passed with just 8 "no" votes in the Senate, it was defeated by the House Thursday on a 37-32 vote.