stating that, “[u]nless and until a defendant shows the victim’s sexual history to be relevant to the facts at bar, this particular form of 7 character evidence simply is not admissible under the normal rules of evidence”
How later courts described this case
- stating that, “[u]nless and until a defendant shows the victim’s sexual history to be relevant to the facts at bar, this particular form of 7 character evidence simply is not admissible under the normal rules of evidence”
- concluding that no plain error existed when referring the jury to the instructions and 8 stating that “[n]othing . . . indicates the jury was incapable of resolving its confusion by reference to the written instructions it already possessed”
- reasoning that, absent exceptional circumstances, the prejudicial impact of evidence of sexual activity with third persons outweighs its probative value under Minn. R. Evid. 403
- concluding that rape does not become a legal impossibility if the victim initially consents to penetration
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
KLAPHAKE, Judge,
concurring specially.
I concur in the result.