Under such situations, the State contends, consent is not an issue and, therefore, the jury instruction was appropriate. See e.g. State v. Small, 631 S.W.2d 616, 617 (Ark. 1982) (where defense is denial, consent is not at issue and prior sexual conduct with defendant is neither relevant nor admissible); Wilson v. State, 551 So.2d 447, 448 (Ala.Crim.App. 1989) (where defense is alibi, consent is not at issue and evidence of prior sexual conduct between victim and defendant is immaterial and inadmissible). At trial, the State argued that prior evidence of sexual activity between Neumann and J.H. was relevant, but only in as much as it informed the jury that Neumann and J.H. were not strangers. The State contended that J.H.'s consent to sexual contact on previous occasions was not relevant to whether she consented to sexual intercourse on November 10, 1990.

How the cocaine came to be in the particular form in which it was sold was immaterial because it was of absolutely "no consequence to the action being litigated." McElroy's Alabama Evidence § 20.01. Cf. Wilson v. State, 551 So.2d 447, 448 (Ala.Cr.App. 1989) (where rape defendant presented alibi defense and denied having intercourse with victim, consent was not at issue and proffered testimony of defense witness who would have testified as to " 'the victim's desire for sex' with [the defendant]" was immaterial and properly excluded). The objection at trial, while incorrectly asserting that drug analyst Adair's testimony in this regard was "irrelevant," vaguely alluded to the materiality aspect of this testimony, although not utilizing that specific term.

. See also Chisler v. State, 553 So.2d 654 (Ala.Cr.App. 1989), cert. denied, 495 U.S. 961, 110 S.Ct. 2572, 109 L.Ed.2d 753 (1990); Wilson v. State, 551 So.2d 447 (Ala.Cr.App. 1989); Hawkins v. State, 549 So.2d 552 (Ala.Cr.App. 1989). V