Cited by

See State v. Crims , rev. denied (Minn. Jan.

“To vindicate [this right], district courts must allow defendants to present evidence that is material and favorable to their theory of the case.” rev. denied (Minn. Jan.

“The right to present a defense includes the opportunity to develop the defendant’s version of the facts, so the jury may decide where the truth lies.” rev. denied (Minn. Jan.

Although a defendant enjoys a right to present evidence that is “material and favorable to their theory of the case,” 6 they have “no right to introduce evidence that either is irrelevant, or whose prejudicial effect outweighs its probative value.” (emphasis omitted), rev. denied (Minn. Jan.

“The right to present a defense includes the opportunity to develop the defendant’s version of the facts, so the jury may decide where the truth lies.” rev. denied (Minn. Jan.

The defendant, however, “has no right to introduce evidence that either is irrelevant, or whose prejudicial effect outweighs its probative value.” -66 (Minn. App. 1995), rev. denied (Minn. Jan.

Known as the “rape- shield law,” the statute “‘serves to emphasize the general irrelevance of a victim’s sexual history.’” Wenthe, d at 306 ( rev. denied (Minn. Jan.

20 Although we are unaware of a case in Minnesota regarding the defendant’s sexual history, this court has held that a victim’s sexual history is of “general irrelevance.” rev. denied (Minn. Jan.

But the right to present a defense is not unlimited—“a defendant has no right to introduce evidence that either is irrelevant, or whose prejudicial effect outweighs its probative value.” -66 (Minn. App. 1995), rev. denied (Minn. Jan.

27, 2013), and the prohibitions against the admission of such evidence “emphasize the general irrelevance of a victim’s sexual history,” rev. denied (Minn. Jan.

XIV; Minn. Const. art. I, § 7; , rev. denied (Minn. Jan.

Evidence of a complainant’s prior sexual history is “highly prejudicial,” Olsen, d at 340 (quotation omitted), and the proscriptions against such evidence “emphasize the general irrelevance of a victim’s sexual history,” rev. denied (Minn. Jan.

And the rape-shield law “serves to remind the bench that the victim’s sexual history is normally irrelevant in a sexual assault prosecution.” rev. denied (Minn. Jan.

The rape shield rule “serves to emphasize the general irrelevance of a victim’s sexual history, ” but it does not operate to “ remove relevant evidence from the jury’s consideration .” rev. denied (Minn. Jan.

402, 403; rev. denied (Minn. Jan.

VI, XIV, § 1; Minn. Const. art. I, § 7; State v. Crims , rev. denied (Minn. Jan.

U.S. Const. amend XIV, § 1; Minn. Const. art. I, § 7; -67 (Minn. App. 1995), review denied (Minn. Jan.

“To vindicate these rights, courts must allow defendants to present evidence that is material and favorable to their theory of the case.” review denied (Minn. Jan.

The rape -shield law “serves to emphasize the general irrelevance of a victim’s sexual history.” (M inn.

See State v. Crims , (“Unless and until a defendant shows the victim’s sexual history to be relevant to the facts at bar, this particular form of character evidence simply is not admissible under the normal rules of evidence.”), review denied (Minn. App. Jan.

See State v. Crims , –65 (Minn. App. 1995), review denied (Minn. Jan.

review denied (Minn. Jan.

didn’t even let my husband do that.” Although the evidence in this case does not come within an enumerated exception, the supreme court has stated that “[t]he rape -shield law serves to emphasize the general 9 irrelevance of a victim ’s sexual history, not to remove relevant evidence from the jury ’s consideration.” Wenthe, d at 306 (quotation omitted); (stating that the rape-shield law “serves to remind the bench that the victim’s sexual history is normally irrelevant in a sexual assault prosec

review denied (Minn. Jan.

The order in which the instructions are given is of no significance.” –65 (Minn. App. 1995) (concluding that no plain error existed when referring the jury to the instructions and 8 stating that “[n]othing .

“Every criminal defendant has a right to fundamental fairness and to be afforded a meaningful opportunity to present a complete defense.” (quotation omitted), review denied (Minn. Jan.

review denied (Minn. Jan.

“[A] trial court may properly refer to its initial charge when that charge provides the jury with the guidance necessary to resolve its confusion.” –65 (Minn. App. 1995), review denied (Minn. Jan.

“Every criminal defendant has a right to fundamental fairness and to be afforded a meaningful opportunity to present a complete defense.” (quotation omitted), review denied (Minn. Jan.

But “a defendant has no right to introduce evidence that either is irrelevant, or whose prejudicial effect outweighs its probative value.” review denied (Minn. Jan.

20(3); review denied (Minn. Jan.

The rape-shield law “serves to emphasize the general irrelevance of a victim’s sexual history, not to remove relevant evidence from the jury’s consideration.” (citing State v. Elijah, 206 Minn. 619, 621, 626 , 289 N.W.

“The right to present a defense includes the opportunity to develop the defendant’s version of the facts, so the [factfinder] may decide where the truth lies.” review denied (Minn. Jan.

“Every criminal defendant has a right to fundamental fairness and to be afforded a meaningful opportunity to present a complete defense.” (quotation omitted), review denied (Minn. Jan.