Sarfraz v. Smith

Dist. Ct. did not err in denying defendant’s habeas petition challenging his Wisc. sexual assault conviction on ground that trial court had improperly applied Wisc. rape-shield law to preclude him from questioning victim as to prior consensual sexual encounters with him. While defendant argued that exclusion of said evidence violated his confrontation right and right to present defense, state court properly applied “inverted balancing test” associated with rape-shield law that favored finding that evidence of victim's sexual history was not relevant in instant criminal proceeding. Moreover, defendant’s proffered evidence did not fall within any exception to rape-shield law, where his proffered evidence that he and victim had prior encounters in which they had fondled each other was too dissimilar to charged conduct involving forced sexual intercourse so as to make defendant’s contention that victim had consented to vaginal intercourse more believable than victim’s claim that defendant had forced himself on her.