Both this court and the supreme court have in prior cases independently assessed the weight of prior-conduct evidence, when the strength of the evidence allowed the court to rule as a matter of law that the prior conduct was clearly and convincingly proved. See, e.g., Volstad, 287 N.W.2d at 662; State v. Yang, No. C4-02-754 (Minn.App. April 15, 2003). But in those cases, evidence of the prior-conduct included in-court testimony by the victim.

In our case, we need not reach the issue of whether Minn. Stat. § 634.20 lowers the burden a proof from clear and convincing. We are persuaded by the logic of State v. Yang, No. C4-02-754 (Minn.App. Apr. 15, 2003) that the Minnesota Supreme Court retains the primary responsibility for regulating the introduction of evidence, and that it is still somewhat of an open question whether prior relationship conduct admitted under Minn. Stat. § 634.20 only need meet the low burden of preponderance of the evidence. We need not decide the issue here and await further direction from the supreme court.