Idaho Criminal Defense Blog : Boise Idaho Criminal Lawyer & Attorney : Chuck Peterson Law Firm : Civil Rights, Trial, Felonies, Assaut, DUI : Boise, Idaho Falls, Pocatello, Idaho

One of those "can I recover" questions last week involved sexual harassment.  Just what is sexual harassment and when do you have a case that will allow recovery in an Idaho court? 

Sexual harassment includes any unwanted, unwelcome, or unsolicited conduct that is sexual in nature. It can include touching, inappropriate jokes, crude or derogatory statements, sexual advances, offers for benefits such as money or a promotion in exchange for sexual favors, displays of pornographic materials, and indecent exposure. 

Sexual harassment is most often associated with conduct in the workplace that interferes with your ability to effectively perform their job. Such conduct in the workplace can come from a boss, a co-worker, or anyone else you come into contact with either at work or in association with work. An employer’s liability for harassment in the workplace is not limited to the conduct of its employees. 

Sexual harassment also may occur outside of work. A person can also be sexually harassed by a friend, a stranger, or even a family member. Harassment can occur at work, school, home, or in public. It can be from someone of the same sex or the opposite sex. 

Whether it is meant to be in good fun or hostile, sexual harassment can leave a lasting impact. It can affect performance at work, school, and daily life, and the conduct has been shown to increase if  ignored.  

If you’ve been sexually harassed, we can fight for your rights as a victim. Give us a call to discuss whether you have a case.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

In a decision by the Idaho Court of Appeals, it may be that evidence of a child's prior exposure to sexual behavior is admissible to answer the implicit question in every sexual prosecution: "how would a ten year old kid know about that sexual behavior?" If you have to defend against such charges, evidence that the child knew from a source other than the alleged sexual act may be proof that the child has fabricated the allegations.  Still, whether the evidence will actually be admitted will depend upon the facts specific to the case.

In Idaho vs Molen, the Petitioner complained that the trial court had twice rejected his offer of evidence that the purported victim had been exposed to sexual behavior by her mother, thus making it more likely that she made up the story and had its building blocks from that prior exposure. To be clear, Molen's defense at trial rested on his assertion that the victim "SZ" made it all up, perhaps at her mother's insistence. The Court stated:

"Molen's offer of proof does not demonstrate that S.Z. had previously observed such conditions or behavior. The offer of proof indicated the evidence would show that S.Z.‟s mother exposed S.Z. to “a constant, graphic, sexually charged lifestyle . . ., including openly having sex with multiple partners with [S.Z.] in the home, openly discussing sex toys and pornography in front of [S.Z.], and openly disrobing in front of other family members in the presence of [S.Z.]” These assertions are too vague and general to establish an alternate source of knowledge from which S.Z. could have fabricated her description of Molen‟s acts.

So Molen's evidence, according to the Court, was not relevant - because it was not specific enough to meet the prosecution's allegations. I suppose this means that when a child alleges intercourse, evidence of prior exposure to intercourse would be admissible but not evidence of some other sexual act. 

But the rules provide that any evidence making the existence or nonexistence of a fact in issue is relevant evidence. Isn't it relevant evidence if it answers the underlying "how would she know about that" question? Apparently not - according to the Court of Appeals.  

There is one other nugget to mine in this decision - the Court held that the prosecutor erred by commenting on the Defendant's invocation of his right to remain silent when she asked him if he had waited to tell his story until after he had heard all the witnesses testimony.  Error? Yes. Result in reversal? No. The error was deemed to be harmless so the Petitioner did not get a new trial.

Whether you agree or disagree, this most recent decision is important to any defendant facing an allegation of sexual battery or lewd acts. These charges are so difficult to defend against that your lawyer needs to read this case - and soon!  Call your lawyer and tell him or her about this decision. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link