The impact of complainant sexual history evidence on jurors' decisions - Considerations from a psychological perspective

Although Canada's sexual assault laws have undergone considerable modification and revision since the late 1970s and early 1980s, it has only been within the past decade that a "rape shield" protection has applied to the complainant's prior sexual conduct with the defendant. Although the admission of evidence concerning the complainant's prior sexual conduct with the defendant now receives legislative protection, it can still, under some circumstances, be admitted at trial. Specifically, if the trial judge determines that the evidence pertaining to the complainant's prior sexual conduct with the defendant is of significant probative value to a fact at issue (other than the complainant's consent or credibility) and that this value is not outweighed by any potential prejudicial effects, it may be admitted at trial. Drawing on psychological research investigating the role played by complainant/defendant relational history in people's evaluations of sexual assault, the current article critically examines the potential impact that this evidence may have on jurors' decisions in sexual assault trials. This review suggests that significant dangers are associated with its introduction at trial and also includes a discussion of the legal implications of these research findings.