The exclusion deprived Baldwin of "the opportunity to argue to the jury that another individual was the source of male DNA found in the child's vaginal vestibule," the court said, "stripping him of his only physical basis for challenging the State's theory of sexual intercourse."
The case stems from a June 2023 sexual assault in which Baldwin, then 37, drove the victim, identified as H.A., to two motels and a secluded wooded area near Bowers Beach, Delaware. H.A. testified that Baldwin assaulted her while she slept in his black 2002 Chevrolet Monte Carlo.
A central issue at trial was whether Baldwin engaged in vaginal intercourse with H.A. That element distinguished the lead charges — Sexual Abuse of a Child by a Person in a Position of Trust First Degree and Rape Second Degree — from lesser offenses carrying shorter mandatory terms.
Male DNA recovered from H.A.'s vaginal vestibule was too degraded to either include or exclude Baldwin as the contributor. The State's own DNA report showed that spermatozoa found on H.A.'s underwear was attributable to an unidentified male who was definitively not Baldwin.
Mid-trial, the court excluded the underwear DNA under Delaware Rule of Evidence 403, finding that admitting it posed "a very real danger of unfairly prejudicing the State or misleading jurors into believing H.A. had engaged in prior sexual conduct."
Justice LeGrow, writing for the court, held that the trial court's 403 balancing was "fatally skewed" because defense counsel never clearly explained the evidence's direct relevance to the case's pivotal question. "The presence of another male's DNA created a possibility that the male DNA in H.A.'s vaginal vestibule was not attributable to Baldwin," the court said.
The court faulted both sides. The State did not alert defense counsel until midway through trial that it intended to redact the underwear DNA results, forcing the trial judge to resolve a complex evidentiary dispute on the fly. Defense counsel repeatedly framed the argument obliquely rather than spelling out the specific inferential chain that made the excluded evidence critical.
The State argued that Delaware's Rape Shield Statute, 11 Del. C. § 3509, operated as an absolute bar to any evidence suggesting the complaining witness had sexual contact with another person. The Supreme Court rejected that reading, holding the statute "does not bar the admission of evidence that another individual could be the source of physical evidence."
The court drew support from a recent Colorado Court of Appeals decision, People v. Hood, which reversed a conviction on materially identical facts. The panel said courts must be careful not to expand rape shield statutes beyond their textual purpose in ways that deprive defendants of exculpatory physical evidence.
The reversed counts are Rape Second Degree, Sexual Abuse of a Child by a Person in a Position of Trust First Degree, Rape Fourth Degree, one count of Unlawful Sexual Contact, and a Sex Offender Unlawful Sexual Conduct charge resolved in a bench trial. Baldwin's remaining convictions, including charges that did not depend on the vaginal-intercourse finding, were not disturbed.
The reversal sends the most serious charges back to the Superior Court for retrial.