Lisa Beth JUDD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Dennis RODMAN, Defendant-Appellee

Citations: 105 F.3d 1339; 46 Fed. R. Serv. 535; 1997 U.S. App. LEXIS 2414; 1997 WL 33035Docket: 95-8888

Court: Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit; February 13, 1997; Federal Appellate Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Lisa Beth Judd sued Dennis Rodman, claiming he wrongfully transmitted genital herpes to her. The jury found in Rodman's favor. Judd appealed, arguing that her prior sexual history, her employment as a nude dancer, and her breast augmentation surgery should have been excluded under Rule 412 of the Federal Rules of Evidence. Rodman contended that Rule 412 did not apply and that Judd waived her right to appeal by not objecting during the trial.

Judd contracted genital herpes after a relationship with Rodman and filed multiple claims, including tortious transmission and battery. During discovery, Rodman inquired about Judd's sexual history and related matters. Judd filed motions in limine to exclude this evidence, while Rodman filed a conditional motion asserting that even if Rule 412 applied, the evidence's probative value outweighed any prejudicial effect.

The trial judge denied Judd's pretrial motions, indicating that the evidence might be relevant to damages. At trial, the judge ruled that Rule 412 did not apply, and Judd subsequently testified about her nude dancing and sexual history. Rodman also questioned her regarding her breast augmentation, to which Judd objected based on relevance, but the objection was overruled. No limiting instructions were requested for the jury. Ultimately, the jury ruled in favor of Rodman, leading to Judd's appeal of the final judgment.

Reviewing the district court's decision on evidence admissibility follows an abuse of discretion standard. Overturning such decisions requires the moving party to demonstrate substantial prejudicial effects. Rule 412, amended in 1994, restricts evidence of a victim's past sexual behavior in civil cases involving sexual misconduct, with a notable exception if such evidence's probative value outweighs potential harm. This rule has primarily been applied in cases of rape and sexual harassment, leaving its applicability to cases involving sexually transmitted disease transmission untested.

In this case, the court determined that errors in admitting evidence of Judd's breast augmentation, prior sexual history, and nude dancing did not substantially prejudice her, rendering further analysis of Rule 412 unnecessary. Assuming, for argument's sake, that Rule 412 applies, the court evaluated the admissibility of the evidence in question.

Regarding breast augmentation, Judd's appeal argued for exclusion under Rule 412. However, her objections during trial did not cite this rule, which, according to Rule 103, precludes her from raising the issue on appeal. Therefore, her objection to the breast augmentation evidence was waived.

As for Judd's prior sexual history, she asserted that its admission justified overturning the judgment. However, the court maintained that to establish error warranting reversal, Judd needed to demonstrate both a timely objection and that a substantial right was affected.

Judd's motion in limine to exclude evidence of her prior sexual history under Rule 412 was deemed sufficient to preserve the issue for appeal, despite the general requirement for a timely objection at trial. The court noted that an overruled motion in limine typically does not preserve an objection, but exceptions exist when a good reason prevents trial objections. In this case, Judd presented her prior sexual history after her motion was overruled, which was considered a valid trial strategy, thus not waiving her objection. The court recognized that objecting to one's own testimony is illogical, allowing the offensive use of such information to bypass the general objection rule.

For Judd to warrant a reversal, she needed to demonstrate that the admission of her prior sexual history affected a substantial right. Under Rule 412(a), evidence of a victim's other sexual behaviors is generally excluded, but Rule 412(b) allows for exceptions if the probative value significantly outweighs potential harm. Judd argued that her prior sexual history should have been excluded due to unfair prejudice; however, the central issue was whether she contracted genital herpes from Rodman. Expert testimony indicated the virus can remain dormant, making evidence of prior sexual relationships and protection methods relevant to Rodman's liability. The court concluded that it did not abuse its discretion in admitting this evidence.

Additionally, regarding Judd's prior employment as a nude dancer, she contended it should be excluded under Rule 412(a)(2) as it was offered to prove her sexual predisposition. She preserved the objection through her motion and at trial but failed to establish that the admission of this evidence affected a substantial right.

The district court had the discretion to admit evidence of Judd's nude dancing, determining that its probative value regarding emotional distress damages outweighed any prejudicial effect. Judd's testimony about feeling 'dirty' after contracting herpes, alongside her continuous employment as a nude dancer, indicated no change in her body image post-infection. Despite the potential prejudicial nature of this evidence, the court found it relevant given the context of the case, which included significant evidence of her sexual history. 

Judd argued that the court abused its discretion by not excluding evidence related to her breast augmentation, sexual history, and nude dancing under Rule 412 of the Federal Rules of Evidence. However, the court concluded that Judd did not preserve her appeal regarding the breast augmentation evidence. Furthermore, while her objections about her sexual history and nude dancing were preserved, the court ruled that this evidence was more probative than prejudicial. Even if there were errors related to Rule 412, they did not impact Judd's substantial rights, leading to the affirmation of the district court's decision.

Senior U.S. District Judge William W. Schwarzer addressed motions related to the introduction of evidence in a case involving Judd's prior sexual relationships and employment, which were challenged under Rule 412, and breast augmentation evidence, challenged under Rule 402. Rodman contended that the trial court should excuse his late filing of the motion under Rule 412(c)(1)(A) due to uncertainty regarding Rule 412's applicability, emphasizing that the court may allow different filing times for good cause. While one motion was granted, it was not part of this appeal.

Evidentiary rulings, particularly under Rule 412, are reviewed stringently due to the presumption against admitting evidence of a victim's sexual behavior. A ruling will only be overturned if it affects a substantial right. The district court did not issue a decisive ruling on Rule 412's applicability but indicated at trial that it likely did not apply. Judd's claim of prejudice due to procedural missteps was rejected; Rodman's conditional admission motion and discovery inquiries sufficiently informed Judd about the anticipated evidence. Additionally, the trial judge allowed admissibility issues to be addressed outside the jury's presence, and Judd waived her right to a hearing by introducing evidence herself.