Court Upholds Curb on Rape Suspects’ Defense : Law: Justices hold that states may impose restrictions on defendants’ testimony about prior consensual relations with their accusers.

The Supreme Court, in its first ruling upholding so-called rape-shield laws, said Monday that a rape suspect does not have an absolute constitutional right to tell a jury about an earlier sexual relationship with his accuser.

In the 1970s, nearly every state enacted laws to forbid court testimony that exposed the private life of a rape victim. Women’s rights advocates had complained that rape suspects tried to save themselves by ruining the reputations of their victims.

But some legal experts said a rape-shield law that blocked a defendant from telling of his prior relationship with his female accuser would be unconstitutional. The Sixth Amendment gives a defendant a right to confront his accusers and to present “witnesses in his favor.”

On Monday, the Supreme Court upheld a compromise version of a rape-shield law that is in effect in many states, including California.

In Michigan, as in California, rape defendants who seek to present evidence of a prior sexual relationship with their accuser must tell the prosecutor and judge in advance. This gives the prosecutor time to check out the statement and the judge an opportunity to decide whether the evidence is relevant.

In speaking for the court, Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, its only female member, said such laws balance the rights of the accused and the accuser.

“The Michigan statute represents a valid legislative determination that rape victims deserve heightened protection against surprise, harassment and unnecessary invasions of privacy,” she wrote.

In some instances, when the defendant fails to notify the prosecutor of his wish to testify about a prior relationship, that failure can result in the evidence being excluded, she added.

The 7-2 ruling overturned a Michigan appeals court that had declared that a rape defendant’s rights are violated by any rule preventing him from telling of his consensual sexual relationship with the woman who accused him of rape.

“This is the first time that the Supreme Court has said that the privacy of the victim can outweigh considerations about guilt or innocence,” Georgetown University law professor Paul Rothstein said. The high court ruled on the case of Nolan Lucas of Highland Park, Mich., who was accused of grabbing a former girlfriend, holding a knife to her throat and forcing her to have sex with him. She was also bruised and suffered a black eye.

The two admitted to having had a torrid affair over the previous few months. He maintained that she consented to have sex and accused him of rape only because he wanted to break off their relationship.

Under Michigan’s rape-shield law, a defendant like Nolan must file a written notice, within 10 days of his arraignment, stating that he wants to present “evidence of the victim’s past sexual conduct” with the accused. This is the strictest notice requirement in the nation.

California’s law on criminal sexual offenses requires a similar notice but does not set such a strict deadline.

Because Lucas’ attorney failed to file the notice, Lucas was not permitted to testify about his prior sexual relationship with the former girlfriend. He was convicted and sentenced to prison. A state appeals court reversed the conviction, however, on the grounds that this exclusion of key evidence violated his Sixth Amendment right to confront his accuser.

“The Sixth Amendment is not so rigid,” O’Connor wrote (Michigan vs. Lucas, 90-149). Had Lucas followed the law, he could have presented his testimony. His failure to do so can “justify even the severe sanction of preclusion” of the evidence, she said.

Justice John Paul Stevens and Thurgood Marshall dissented, saying the Constitution gives the defendant the right to present “potentially relevant evidence.”

In other actions, the court:

--Refused to hear Nevada’s challenge to a decision by Congress to put a nuclear waste dump at Yucca Mountain, 100 miles northwest of Las Vegas. The lower court said that, as a legal matter, federal law prevails over state law. (Nevada vs. Jamison, 90-1324.)

--Gave the Drug Enforcement Administration broad power to ban new “designer drugs.” In 1984, Congress said the DEA may declare illegal any new drugs that were chemical variations of already illegal ones. The 9-0 decision upheld this arrangement. (Touby vs. US, 90-6282.)

--Overturned an Idaho man’s death sentence on a 5-4 vote because his attorney had not been told that her client could receive such a penalty. The prosecutor had recommended a 10- to 20-year sentence for a convicted killer, but the judge imposed the death sentence. (Lankford vs. Idaho, 88-7247.)