State v. Crims

118 Citing cases

  1. State v. Gerold

    No. A10-1545 (Minn. Ct. App. Mar. 15, 2011)

    In Minnesota, admission of evidence of prior sexual conduct of the victim in a criminal sexual-conduct case is governed by Minn. R. Evid. 412. State v. Crims, 540 N.W.2d 860, 866 (Minn. App. 1996), review denied (Minn. Jan. 23, 1996). Under rule 412, evidence of prior sexual conduct of the victim "shall not be admitted nor shall any reference to such conduct be made in the presence of the jury, except by court order under the procedure provided in rule 412."

  2. State v. Hunter

    No. A10-336 (Minn. Ct. App. Feb. 8, 2011)

    "[T]he rape shield statute serves to emphasize the general irrelevance of a victim's sexual history, not to remove relevant evidence from the jury's consideration." State v. Crims, 540 N.W.2d 860, 867 (Minn. App. 1995), review denied (Jan. 23, 1996). In particular circumstances in which a victim's prior sexual conduct is relevant, evidence of a victim's sexual history may be admissible.

  3. State v. Davis

    546 N.W.2d 30 (Minn. Ct. App. 1996)   Cited 27 times
    Holding that the district court can exclude even relevant evidence where the potential for prejudice is significant

    Davis apparently concedes the inadmissibility of C.O.'s sexual history under either the rape shield statute (Minn.Stat. § 609.347, subd. 3 (1994)) or its counterpart in the Minnesota Rules of Evidence (Minn. R. Evid. 412) and relies solely on his constitutional right to present evidence material and favorable to his theory that C.O. consented to exchange sex for crack cocaine. See State v. Crims, 540 N.W.2d 860, 865-66 (Minn.App. 1995) (noting a constitutional defendant's right to present evidence that is material and favorable to the theory of defense), review denied (Minn. Jan. 25, 1996); see also Sandoval v. Acevedo, 996 F.2d 145, 149-50 (7th Cir.) (recognizing the constitutional right of a rape defendant to introduce vital evidence favorable to his defense), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 114 S.Ct. 307, 126 L.Ed.2d 255 (1993); Wood v. Alaska, 957 F.2d 1544, 1554 (9th Cir. 1992) (same); United States v. Saunders, 736 F. Supp. 698, 703 (E.D.Va. 1990) (same), aff'd, 943 F.2d 388 (4th Cir. 1991), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 1105, 112 S.Ct. 1199, 117 L.Ed.2d 439 (1992) (same); Government of the Virgin Islands v. Jacobs, 634 F. Supp. 933, 938 (D.Vi. 1986) (same); State v. Vaughn, 448 So.2d 1260, 1262 (La. 1983) (same); State v. Patnaude, 140 Vt. 361, 438 A.2d 402, 404-05 (1981) (same); State v. Hudlow, 99 Wn.2d 1, 659 P.2d 514, 523 (1983) (same); 2 Christopher B. Mueller Laird C. Kirkpatrick, Federal Evidence § 159, at 200

  4. State v. Cobb

    No. A14-0422 (Minn. Ct. App. Mar. 2, 2015)

    "Every criminal defendant has a right to fundamental fairness and to be afforded a meaningful opportunity to present a complete defense." State v. Crims, 540 N.W.2d 860, 865 (Minn. App. 1995) (quotation omitted), review denied (Minn. Jan. 23, 1996). "The right to present a defense includes the opportunity to develop the defendant's version of the facts . . . ." Id.

  5. State v. Hamilton

    A11-115 (Minn. Ct. App. Jan. 3, 2012)   Cited 1 times

    In reviewing a district court's evidentiary rulings, we examine the record for abuse of discretion. State v. Crims, 540 N.W.2d 860, 864 (Minn. App. 1995), review denied (Minn. Jan. 23, 1996). We will reverse an evidentiary error only if there is a "reasonable possibility" that it prejudiced the appellant.

  6. State v. Johnson

    123 N.M. 640 (N.M. 1997)   Cited 35 times
    Holding that trial courts must balance defendant's right to present a full and fair defense with the state's interests in each case to determine whether exclusion of evidence under rape shield law is unconstitutional

    The Minnesota Court of Appeals has said that "the rape shield statute serves to emphasize the general irrelevance of a victim's sexual history, not to remove relevant evidence from the jury's consideration." State v. Crims, 540 N.W.2d 860, 867 (Minn.Ct.App. 1995). The same might be said of the New Mexico statute, notwithstanding its different formulation.

  7. State v. Sorto

    No. A23-1564 (Minn. Ct. App. Sep. 9, 2024)

    "In a prosecution for acts of criminal sexual conduct . . ., evidence of the victim's previous sexual conduct shall not be admitted nor shall any reference to such conduct be made in the presence of the jury, except by court order ...." Minn. R. Evid. 412(1); see also Minn. Stat. § 609.347, subd. 3 (2022) (generally barring the admission of a victim's previous sexual conduct). Evidence of a victim's previous sexual conduct is "highly prejudicial," State v. Olsen, 824 N.W.2d 334, 340 (Minn.App. 2012), rev. denied (Minn. Feb. 27, 2013), and the prohibitions against the admission of such evidence "emphasize the general irrelevance of a victim's sexual history," State v. Crims, 540 N.W.2d 860, 867 (Minn.App. 1995), rev. denied (Minn. Jan. 23, 1996). Given these concerns, evidence of a victim's previous sexual conduct is admissible only if an exception to rule 412 applies and "if the probative value of the evidence is not substantially outweighed by its inflammatory or prejudicial nature."

  8. State v. Miller

    No. A20-0441 (Minn. Ct. App. Apr. 12, 2021)

    Zumberge, 888 N.W.2d at 694. A defendant has the right to present a complete defense and to confront his accuser under the United States and Minnesota Constitutions. U.S. Const. amend XIV, § 1; Minn. Const. art. I, § 7; State v. Crims, 540 N.W.2d 860, 866-67 (Minn. App. 1995), review denied (Minn. Jan. 23, 1996). These rights are subject to the rules of evidence.

  9. State v. Hagerman

    No. A19-0932 (Minn. Ct. App. Jan. 21, 2020)

    The rape-shield law "serves to emphasize the general irrelevance of a victim's sexual history." State v. Crims, 540 N.W.2d 860, 867 (Minn. App. 1995), review denied (Minn. Jan. 25, 1996). The law prohibits admission of a victim's prior sexual assault allegation, unless the procedure in Minn.

  10. State v. Okon

    A13-2018 (Minn. Ct. App. Aug. 4, 2014)   Cited 2 times

    27 Feb. 2013). "Special circumstances" include evidence showing a predisposition to fabricate a charge of rape, id., and "[evidence that] explains a physical fact in issue at trial, suggests bias or ulterior motive, or establishes a pattern of behavior clearly similar to the conduct at issue." State v. Crims, 540 N.W.2d 860, 868 (Minn. App. 1995) (emphasis omitted), review denied (Minn. 23 Jan. 1996).