Issues: Pennsylvania’s rape shield law, evidence of prostitution conviction to suggest consent. 

The defendant in this case was charged with multiple counts of rape against five different victims. At trial, he sought to introduce evidence that two of the victims had prostitution convictions to bolster his defense that the sexual encounters were consensual. The trial court denied his motions in limine to allow this evidence into the record based upon the Rape Shield Law. The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania concluded that this type of evidence is precluded by the Rape Shield Law and that the defendant’s constitutional rights did not compel a different result.