Stephens v. Miller

United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1994 · Evidence

13 F.3d 998 (7th Cir. 1994)

Updated August 22, 2026

Evidencehabeas corpusright to testifyrape shield statutestate evidentiary rulesdue processSixth Amendmentres gestae

Facts

Stephens was convicted of attempted rape after Melissa Wilburn testified that he forced himself on her in her trailer. Stephens testified instead that the two had consensual sexual intercourse and that Wilburn became angry and told him to stop and leave after he made remarks including references to "doggy fashion" and "switching partners." The Indiana trial court excluded those specific statements under Indiana's rape shield statute but allowed Stephens to testify that he said something that angered Wilburn and led her to fabricate the charge. Stephens argued in federal habeas that excluding the precise statements violated his constitutional right to testify and that the statements were admissible as part of the res gestae.

Issue

Whether the Indiana court's application of the rape shield statute to exclude Stephens' specific statements about Wilburn's alleged sexual preferences and partner switching violated his constitutional right to testify in his own defense. Also, whether the exclusion could be attacked in federal habeas as state-law error or justified constitutionally under a res gestae theory.

Rule

Federal habeas relief does not lie for mere errors of state law. Although a criminal defendant has a constitutional right to testify, that right is not unlimited and may yield to legitimate evidentiary restrictions, including rape shield statutes, so long as the restriction is not arbitrary or disproportionate to the purposes it is designed to serve and the state's interests justify the limitation imposed.

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In a Nevada sexual battery prosecution, the trial judge excluded part of Devon Pike's testimony under Nevada's rape shield statute. After his conviction became final, Devon filed a federal habeas petition arguing only that the Nevada courts misread the state statute's text and should have admitted the evidence under state law.

How should the federal habeas court rule?

Explanation. A federal habeas court asks only whether the petitioner is in custody in violation of the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States. A claim that the state courts simply misapplied their own rape shield statute, standing alone, is not cognizable. The majority opinion treated alleged state-law misapplication as outside federal habeas review.