State v. Garron

J.S. was a secretary at a prosecutor’s office from 1992 until 1997. Anderson Garron (defendant) was a police officer, and his wife, Stephanie Garron, was a detective at the prosecutor’s office. Anderson saw J.S. numerous times per month while visiting Stephanie at work, and according to Anderson, J.S. flirted with him each time. J.S. heaped attention on Anderson, touched and hugged him, said she wished to be involved with him romantically, and kissed him twice. In September 1998, Anderson drove by J.S.’s home while on duty and knocked on her door. Anderson and J.S. went inside, where J.S. performed oral sex on Anderson. Anderson contended that the act was consensual, while J.S. argued that she was forced. The state (plaintiff) charged Anderson with aggravated sexual assault. At trial, Anderson sought to pursue a consent defense and introduce evidence of J.S.’s flirtatious conduct toward him. Pursuant to the state’s rape-shield statute, which prevented a defendant from introducing evidence of a victim’s prior sexual conduct, a pretrial hearing was held. Five witnesses testified at the hearing, including Anderson, who testified as to J.S.’s persistent flirtatious remarks, an occasion when she grabbed his rear end at the prosecutor’s office, and two occasions when she kissed him: first in 1997, on her last day of work at the prosecutor’s office, and next in 1998, after Anderson helped resolve a seatbelt violation for her; Stephanie, who described J.S.’s behavior as “outrageous,” consisting of threatening to take Anderson away from Stephanie and repeatedly touching him; and three secretaries from the prosecutor’s office, two of whom corroborated the steadfastness of J.S.’s flirtatious comments and behavior. The trial court ruled that only three incidents would be admissible at trial: J.S. grabbing Anderson’s rear end, their first kiss in 1997, and their second kiss in 1998. J.S. denied that all three incidents occurred. The jury rejected Anderson’s defense and convicted him of aggravated sexual assault. Anderson appealed, and the New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division, affirmed in a split decision. Anderson appealed again, arguing that the excluded evidence would have explained his and J.S.’s relationship prior to the sexual encounter and, thus, J.S.’s consent.