Twin Cities Criminal Lawyer

Evidence in Criminal Sexual Conduct Cases

Navigating Evidentiary Rules in Twin Cities Criminal Sexual Conduct Cases: Understanding Minnesota Statute § 609.347

The rules of evidence in criminal sexual conduct (CSC) cases are critically important, shaping the scope of what information can be presented to a jury and how legal arguments are structured. Minnesota Statute § 609.347 lays out specific evidentiary guidelines unique to these sensitive prosecutions, addressing issues such as the need for corroboration of victim testimony, the relevance of victim resistance, and, most notably, the admissibility of a victim’s prior sexual conduct—often referred to as Minnesota’s Rape Shield Law. For individuals involved in CSC cases in Minneapolis, St. Paul, Hennepin County, Ramsey County, and the wider Twin Cities region, a thorough understanding of these rules is indispensable for ensuring a fair trial.

These evidentiary rules aim to balance the defendant’s right to a fair trial and to present a defense with the need to protect victims from irrelevant and prejudicial inquiries that could deter the reporting of sexual assaults. The statute sets forth strict procedures and limitations, particularly concerning evidence of a victim’s past sexual history, allowing it only in very narrow circumstances and after judicial review. Successfully navigating these complex rules requires careful legal analysis and strategic litigation, underscoring the importance of knowledgeable legal representation to uphold the principles of justice within the Minnesota court system.

Minnesota Statute § 609.347: Governing Evidence in Criminal Sexual Conduct Prosecutions

Minnesota law provides a detailed statutory framework governing the types of evidence that can be admitted, and how it can be presented, in prosecutions for criminal sexual conduct. These crucial rules are codified under Minnesota Statute § 609.347, which addresses victim testimony, resistance, prior sexual conduct, and jury instructions.

609.347 EVIDENCE IN CRIMINAL SEXUAL CONDUCT CASES.

Subdivision 1.Victim testimony; corroboration unnecessary. In a prosecution under sections 609.342 to 609.3451; 609.3453; 609.3458; or Minnesota Statutes 2004, section 609.109, the testimony of a victim need not be corroborated.

Subd. 2.Showing of resistance unnecessary. In a prosecution under sections 609.342 to 609.3451; 609.3453; 609.3458; or Minnesota Statutes 2004, section 609.109, there is no need to show that the victim resisted the accused.

Subd. 3.Previous sexual conduct. In a prosecution under sections 609.342 to 609.3451; 609.3453; 609.3458; 609.365; or Minnesota Statutes 2004, section 609.109, 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 under the procedure provided in subdivision 4. The evidence can be admitted only if the probative value of the evidence is not substantially outweighed by its inflammatory or prejudicial nature and only in the circumstances set out in paragraphs (a) and (b). For the evidence to be admissible under paragraph (a), subsection (i), the judge must find by a preponderance of the evidence that the facts set out in the accused’s offer of proof are true. For the evidence to be admissible under paragraph (a), subsection (ii) or paragraph (b), the judge must find that the evidence is sufficient to support a finding that the facts set out in the accused’s offer of proof are true, as provided under Rule 901 of the Rules of Evidence.

(a) When consent of the victim is a defense in the case, the following evidence is admissible:

(i) evidence of the victim’s previous sexual conduct tending to establish a common scheme or plan of similar sexual conduct under circumstances similar to the case at issue. In order to find a common scheme or plan, the judge must find that the victim made prior allegations of sexual assault which were fabricated; and

(ii) evidence of the victim’s previous sexual conduct with the accused.

(b) When the prosecution’s case includes evidence of semen, pregnancy, or disease at the time of the incident or, in the case of pregnancy, between the time of the incident and trial, evidence of specific instances of the victim’s previous sexual conduct is admissible solely to show the source of the semen, pregnancy, or disease.

Subd. 4.Accused offer of evidence. The accused may not offer evidence described in subdivision 3 except pursuant to the following procedure:

(a) A motion shall be made by the accused at least three business days prior to trial, unless later for good cause shown, setting out with particularity the offer of proof of the evidence that the accused intends to offer, relative to the previous sexual conduct of the victim;

(b) If the court deems the offer of proof sufficient, the court shall order a hearing out of the presence of the jury, if any, and in such hearing shall allow the accused to make a full presentation of the offer of proof;

(c) At the conclusion of the hearing, if the court finds that the evidence proposed to be offered by the accused regarding the previous sexual conduct of the victim is admissible under subdivision 3 and that its probative value is not substantially outweighed by its inflammatory or prejudicial nature, the court shall make an order stating the extent to which evidence is admissible. The accused may then offer evidence pursuant to the order of the court;

(d) If new information is discovered after the date of the hearing or during the course of trial, which may make evidence described in subdivision 3 admissible, the accused may make an offer of proof pursuant to clause (a) and the court shall order an in camera hearing to determine whether the proposed evidence is admissible by the standards herein.

Subd. 5.Prohibiting instructing jury on certain points. In a prosecution under sections 609.342 to 609.3451; 609.3453; 609.3458; or Minnesota Statutes 2004, section 609.109, the court shall not instruct the jury to the effect that:

(a) it may be inferred that a victim who has previously consented to sexual intercourse with persons other than the accused would be therefore more likely to consent to sexual intercourse again; or

(b) the victim’s previous or subsequent sexual conduct in and of itself may be considered in determining the credibility of the victim; or

(c) criminal sexual conduct is a crime easily charged by a victim but very difficult to disprove by an accused because of the heinous nature of the crime; or

(d) the jury should scrutinize the testimony of the victim any more closely than it should scrutinize the testimony of any witness in any felony prosecution.

Subd. 6.Psychotherapy evidence. (a) In a prosecution under sections 609.342 to 609.3451; 609.3453; 609.3458; or Minnesota Statutes 2004, section 609.109, involving a psychotherapist and patient, evidence of the patient’s personal or medical history is not admissible except when:

(1) the accused requests a hearing at least three business days prior to trial and makes an offer of proof of the relevancy of the history; and

(2) the court finds that the history is relevant and that the probative value of the history outweighs its prejudicial value.

(b) The court shall allow the admission only of specific information or examples of conduct of the victim that are determined by the court to be relevant. The court’s order shall detail the information or conduct that is admissible and no other evidence of the history may be introduced.

(c) Violation of the terms of the order is grounds for mistrial but does not prevent the retrial of the accused.

Subd. 7.Effect of statute on rules. Rule 412 of the Rules of Evidence is superseded to the extent of its conflict with this section.

History: 1975 c 374 s 8; 1984 c 588 s 10; 1985 c 297 s 8; 1986 c 351 s 12; 1986 c 444; 1Sp1986 c 3 art 1 s 72; 1987 c 114 s 1; 1997 c 239 art 5 s 10; 1998 c 367 art 6 s 8-12; 2005 c 136 art 4 s 6; 2007 c 13 art 3 s 37; 1Sp2021 c 11 art 4 s 31

Key Provisions of Minnesota’s Evidentiary Rules in Criminal Sexual Conduct Cases

Minnesota Statute § 609.347 establishes specific rules of evidence that apply to prosecutions for criminal sexual conduct (CSC) and related offenses. These rules are designed to ensure fair trials while protecting victims from unnecessary or prejudicial inquiries. Unlike statutes defining crimes, § 609.347 dictates what evidence is admissible and what procedures must be followed. For anyone involved in a CSC case in Minnesota, including in Hennepin County or Ramsey County, understanding these provisions is crucial, as they directly impact trial strategy and outcomes. The prosecution must still prove the elements of the underlying CSC offense, but these rules shape how that proof can be presented and challenged.

  • Victim Testimony and Corroboration (Subdivision 1): This provision states that in prosecutions for various criminal sexual conduct offenses (sections 609.342 to 609.3451, 609.3453, 609.3458), the testimony of a victim need not be corroborated. This means a conviction can be based on the victim’s testimony alone if the jury finds it credible beyond a reasonable doubt. Historically, some laws required corroborating evidence in sex crime cases, but this subdivision explicitly removes that requirement in Minnesota, recognizing that such crimes often occur in private without other witnesses. The focus is on the credibility and sufficiency of the victim’s account as assessed by the jury.
  • Showing of Resistance Unnecessary (Subdivision 2): Similarly, this subdivision mandates that in CSC prosecutions, there is no need to show that the victim resisted the accused. This provision acknowledges that victims may not resist for various valid reasons, including fear of greater harm, shock, or the presence of a weapon. It prevents the defense from arguing that a lack of physical resistance implies consent. The law focuses on whether the sexual act was non-consensual, not on the victim’s physical response to the assault.
  • Admissibility of Victim’s Previous Sexual Conduct (Subdivision 3 – Rape Shield Law): This is a critical and complex part of the statute, often referred to as Minnesota’s Rape Shield Law. It generally prohibits the admission of evidence of a victim’s previous sexual conduct and any reference to it in the jury’s presence, except by court order following specific procedures (outlined in Subd. 4). Evidence of prior sexual conduct can only be admitted if its probative value is not substantially outweighed by its inflammatory or prejudicial nature, AND only in two narrow circumstances:
    • (a) When consent is a defense: (i) Evidence of the victim’s prior sexual conduct establishing a “common scheme or plan” of fabricated similar sexual assault allegations. The judge must find by a preponderance of the evidence that the prior allegations were indeed fabricated. (ii) Evidence of the victim’s previous sexual conduct with the accused.
    • (b) Source of semen, pregnancy, or disease: When the prosecution’s case includes such evidence, specific instances of the victim’s prior sexual conduct are admissible solely to show an alternative source.The stringent conditions, especially the requirement to prove prior fabricated allegations for “common scheme or plan,” make admission under (a)(i) exceedingly rare.
  • Procedure for Offering Evidence of Previous Sexual Conduct (Subdivision 4): This subdivision details the mandatory procedure an accused person must follow to offer evidence of a victim’s previous sexual conduct under Subdivision 3. This includes:
    • (a) Pre-trial motion: The accused must file a motion at least three business days before trial (unless for good cause shown later) detailing the specific evidence.
    • (b) Hearing: If the offer of proof is deemed sufficient, the court holds a hearing outside the jury’s presence where the accused presents the offer.
    • (c) Court order: If the court finds the evidence admissible under Subd. 3 and its probative value isn’t substantially outweighed by prejudice, it issues an order specifying what evidence is admissible.
    • (d) Newly discovered information: A similar process applies if new, potentially admissible information is found later.This procedural gatekeeping is designed to prevent surprise and to allow the court to carefully vet such sensitive evidence.
  • Prohibited Jury Instructions (Subdivision 5): This section explicitly forbids the court from giving certain jury instructions that rely on outdated or discriminatory myths about sexual assault victims. These prohibited instructions include inferring that prior consent with others makes current consent more likely, considering prior/subsequent sexual conduct as determinative of credibility, suggesting CSC is easily charged but hard to disprove, or that a victim’s testimony should be scrutinized more closely than other witnesses in felony cases. This aims to ensure jurors base their decisions on the evidence presented in the specific case, free from common biases.
  • Evidence of Psychotherapy History (Subdivision 6): In CSC cases involving a psychotherapist and patient, evidence of the patient’s personal or medical history is generally not admissible. It can only be admitted if the accused requests a pre-trial hearing, makes an offer of proof of relevancy, and the court finds the history relevant and its probative value outweighs its prejudicial value. If admitted, only specific, court-approved information or conduct is allowed. This protects patient privacy while allowing for relevant evidence in narrow circumstances.

Implications of Evidentiary Rules in Minnesota CSC Cases: Shaping Trials in the Twin Cities

The evidentiary rules outlined in Minnesota Statute § 609.347 have profound implications for how criminal sexual conduct cases are prosecuted and defended in Minneapolis, St. Paul, and across the state. These rules are not mere technicalities; they actively shape trial dynamics, protect the integrity of the legal process, and aim to balance the rights of the accused with the need to shield victims from unfair prejudice. Understanding these implications is vital for all parties involved in the often emotionally charged and complex arena of CSC litigation.

Impact on Victim Testimony and Credibility

Subdivision 1, stating that a victim’s testimony need not be corroborated, places significant weight on the victim’s account. This means that in Hennepin County or Ramsey County courts, a CSC case can proceed to trial and potentially result in a conviction based solely on the victim’s testimony, provided the jury finds it credible beyond a reasonable doubt. While this empowers victims whose assaults may have occurred without other witnesses, it also underscores the critical importance of thorough cross-examination by the defense to test that credibility. Similarly, Subdivision 2, eliminating the need to show victim resistance, prevents outdated notions about how a “true victim” should behave from improperly influencing jury deliberations.

Strict Limitations on Introducing Victim’s Sexual History (Rape Shield)

The most significant impact often comes from Subdivision 3, Minnesota’s Rape Shield Law. By severely restricting the admissibility of a victim’s prior sexual conduct, the statute aims to prevent trials from devolving into an inquiry into the victim’s character or past relationships, which are generally irrelevant to whether a specific alleged assault occurred. This protects victims from public shaming and harassment in court, encouraging reporting. For defendants, it means that defenses based on a victim’s sexual history are very narrowly confined to specific exceptions, such as prior sexual conduct with the accused (relevant to consent) or evidence to show an alternative source of semen, pregnancy, or disease. The stringent procedural requirements in Subdivision 4 for even attempting to introduce such evidence further reinforce these protections.

Ensuring Fair Jury Deliberations Through Prohibited Instructions

Subdivision 5, which prohibits certain jury instructions based on common myths about sexual assault, plays a crucial role in promoting fair deliberations. By disallowing instructions that might suggest victims with prior sexual experience are more likely to consent, or that CSC is easily charged, the law directs juries in Twin Cities courtrooms to focus on the specific evidence presented in the case at hand. This helps to counteract biases that could unfairly prejudice the victim or the defendant and ensures that the victim’s testimony is evaluated on the same basis as any other witness in a felony prosecution.

Balancing Privacy and Relevance in Psychotherapy Evidence

For the specific context of cases involving psychotherapists and patients (Subdivision 6), the rules attempt to strike a balance. A patient-victim’s psychotherapy history is presumptively private and inadmissible, protecting sensitive personal information. However, it allows for the admission of relevant history if the accused can demonstrate its probative value outweighs its prejudicial effect through a specific pre-trial hearing process. This ensures that while privacy is paramount, a defendant is not entirely precluded from introducing genuinely relevant evidence that might be crucial to their defense, subject to strict judicial oversight.

Understanding Minnesota’s CSC Evidentiary Rules Through Examples in the Metro Area

The application of Minnesota Statute § 609.347, which governs evidence in criminal sexual conduct cases, can be complex. These rules dictate what information juries in Minneapolis, St. Paul, and other Twin Cities jurisdictions hear, significantly impacting trial outcomes. The following scenarios illustrate how these evidentiary principles might operate in practice, demonstrating the balance the law seeks between protecting victims and ensuring a fair trial for the accused.

These examples are for illustrative purposes to clarify the statute’s provisions. The actual admissibility of evidence in any specific Hennepin County or Ramsey County courtroom would depend on the precise facts, the arguments of counsel, and the rulings of the presiding judge.

Example: Victim Testimony as Sole Evidence in a Minneapolis Case

Scenario Description: In a Minneapolis apartment, an individual alleges they were sexually assaulted by an acquaintance. There were no other witnesses to the specific act. The prosecution proceeds with charges based primarily on the victim’s detailed testimony about the event. The defense argues lack of evidence.

Application of Statute: Under § 609.347, Subd. 1, the victim’s testimony does not need to be corroborated. The Hennepin County prosecutor can build their case around the victim’s account. The jury will be tasked with assessing the victim’s credibility. If the jury believes the victim’s testimony beyond a reasonable doubt, a conviction can occur even without other direct evidence like DNA (if unavailable or inconclusive) or eyewitnesses to the assault itself.

Example: Relevance of Lack of Physical Resistance in a St. Paul Case

Scenario Description: A victim in St. Paul reports a sexual assault where they “froze” out of fear and did not physically fight back against the assailant. The defense attorney, during cross-examination, questions the victim about why they didn’t scream or try to escape, implying this suggests consent.

Application of Statute: According to § 609.347, Subd. 2, there is no need to show that the victim resisted the accused. The Ramsey County prosecutor can object to lines of questioning that imply a lack of resistance equates to consent. The judge would likely instruct the jury (or sustain objections) based on this rule, emphasizing that the law does not require a victim to resist for a sexual act to be considered non-consensual.

Example: Defense Attempt to Introduce Victim’s Prior Sexual Conduct in Dakota County

Scenario Description: An individual is accused of criminal sexual conduct in Dakota County. The defense claims the encounter was consensual. The defense attorney learns the victim had multiple sexual partners in the year leading up to the alleged incident and wants to introduce this evidence to suggest the victim is “promiscuous” and therefore more likely to have consented.

Application of Statute: This attempt would almost certainly fail under § 609.347, Subd. 3 (Rape Shield Law). Evidence of the victim’s previous sexual conduct with other persons is generally inadmissible to prove consent in the current case. It’s irrelevant and highly prejudicial. The defense would have to file a motion under Subd. 4, and the judge would likely rule it inadmissible because it doesn’t fit the narrow exceptions (e.g., prior fabricated allegations by the victim, or prior sexual conduct with the accused, or to show the source of semen/pregnancy/disease).

Example: Admissible Evidence of Prior Sexual Conduct with the Accused in Anoka County

Scenario Description: In Anoka County, a defendant is charged with criminal sexual conduct. The defense is consent. The defendant claims they had a prior ongoing consensual sexual relationship with the complainant (victim). The defense wishes to introduce evidence of this prior consensual sexual activity between them to argue the specific instance charged was also consensual.

Application of Statute: Under § 609.347, Subd. 3(a)(ii), evidence of the victim’s previous sexual conduct with the accused is potentially admissible when consent is a defense. The Anoka County defense attorney would file a motion under Subd. 4. The judge would hold a hearing to determine if the probative value of this specific evidence (prior relationship with the accused) outweighs its prejudicial nature. If deemed admissible, it could be presented to the jury as relevant to the issue of consent in this specific relationship.

Example: Prohibited Jury Instruction Regarding Victim Credibility in Hennepin County

Scenario Description: During a CSC trial in Hennepin County, the defense attorney requests the judge to instruct the jury that “sexual assault is a charge easily made and difficult to disprove” and that they should therefore “scrutinize the victim’s testimony with extra care.”

Application of Statute: The judge must refuse this request under § 609.347, Subd. 5(c) and (d). This subdivision explicitly prohibits instructing the jury with such outdated and prejudicial notions. The judge will instruct the jury to evaluate the victim’s testimony like that of any other witness in a felony case, without applying a higher or lower standard of scrutiny based solely on the nature of the charge or the fact they are the complainant.

Strategic Use of Evidentiary Rules in Minnesota Criminal Sexual Conduct Defense

Navigating a criminal sexual conduct (CSC) prosecution in Minnesota, particularly in jurisdictions like Hennepin, Ramsey, Dakota, or Anoka counties, requires not only a deep understanding of the substantive criminal statutes but also a mastery of the specific evidentiary rules laid out in Minnesota Statute § 609.347. For defense counsel, these rules provide both limitations and potential avenues for protecting the accused’s right to a fair trial. A confident and effective defense strategy involves leveraging these rules to challenge the prosecution’s case, exclude improper evidence, and ensure that only relevant and permissible information reaches the jury.

The evidentiary framework in CSC cases is designed to prevent trials from becoming unfair inquiries into a victim’s past while still allowing an accused person to present a legitimate defense. This means defense strategies must be precise, legally sound, and procedurally correct. Successfully challenging the admissibility of certain prosecution evidence or, conversely, meeting the high bar for admitting sensitive defense evidence (like a victim’s prior sexual conduct under very specific exceptions) can significantly alter the landscape of a trial. The ultimate goal is to ensure that any conviction is based solely on credible, legally admissible evidence proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

Upholding the Rape Shield Protections (Subdivision 3)

While primarily a protection for victims, defense counsel must also understand the Rape Shield Law to ensure its proper application and to identify the very narrow, legally permissible exceptions.

  • Objecting to Improper Inquiries: Action: Defense counsel has a duty to be vigilant and object if the prosecution, inadvertently or otherwise, attempts to elicit or refer to inadmissible aspects of a victim’s character or unrelated conduct that might prejudice the jury. Conversely, the defense must scrupulously avoid making such improper inquiries themselves, unless they fall within a clearly defined statutory exception and proper procedure under Subdivision 4 is followed.
  • Strategic Use of Exceptions: Consideration: In rare cases where consent is the defense and there is credible evidence of prior fabricated allegations by the victim (Subd. 3(a)(i)) or prior sexual conduct with the accused (Subd. 3(a)(ii)), or where evidence of prior conduct is relevant to the source of semen/pregnancy/disease (Subd. 3(b)), defense counsel must meticulously follow the procedural requirements of Subdivision 4 to seek admission. This involves a detailed pre-trial motion and a hearing, demonstrating that the evidence is highly probative and not substantially outweighed by prejudice.

Ensuring Adherence to Procedural Requirements for Evidence (Subdivision 4)

The strict procedures for offering evidence of a victim’s prior sexual conduct are a critical safeguard. Defense counsel must adhere to these if seeking to introduce such evidence.

  • Timely and Specific Motions: Requirement: Any attempt to introduce evidence under Subdivision 3 must be preceded by a timely motion (at least three business days before trial, unless good cause shown) that sets out the offer of proof with particularity. Failure to follow this procedure will likely result in the evidence being barred. This applies in all Twin Cities courts.
  • Effective Presentation at In Camera Hearings: Advocacy: If the court grants a hearing on the motion, defense counsel must be prepared to make a full and compelling presentation of the offer of proof, arguing why the evidence meets the stringent admissibility criteria of Subdivision 3 and why its probative value is not substantially outweighed by its inflammatory or prejudicial nature.

Leveraging Rules on Corroboration and Resistance (Subdivisions 1 & 2)

While these subdivisions primarily benefit the prosecution by stating victim testimony needs no corroboration and resistance need not be shown, defense counsel must understand their implications.

  • Focus on Credibility: Strategy: Since corroboration is not required, the defense’s primary avenue to challenge a case resting solely on victim testimony is through rigorous cross-examination aimed at testing the victim’s credibility, memory, and potential biases or inconsistencies in their account. This must be done skillfully and ethically, without violating the spirit of the Rape Shield provisions.
  • Contextualizing Lack of Resistance: Argument: While lack of resistance cannot be equated with consent, the defense may still explore the full context of the encounter if relevant to other aspects of the defense (e.g., if the defense theory involves a misunderstanding of ambiguous signals, though this is a very delicate area). The key is that the legal requirement to show resistance is absent.

Monitoring for and Objecting to Prohibited Jury Instructions (Subdivision 5)

Defense counsel must be attentive during the jury instruction phase to ensure the court does not inadvertently give (or that the prosecution does not request) any instructions prohibited by Subdivision 5.

  • Vigilance During Instruction Conference: Duty: Attorneys from both sides meet with the judge to discuss proposed jury instructions. Defense counsel must ensure that no instructions are given that would unfairly prejudice the defendant by, for example, suggesting a victim’s testimony is inherently more or less credible due to the nature of the crime or their past.
  • Preserving Issues for Appeal: Action: If the court gives an improper instruction over a defense objection, or refuses a proper defense-requested instruction (that does not violate Subd. 5), this can form a basis for an appeal if the defendant is convicted.

Answering Your Questions About Evidence Rules in Minnesota Criminal Sexual Conduct Cases

Navigating the evidentiary rules in criminal sexual conduct (CSC) cases under Minnesota Statute § 609.347 can be complex for everyone involved. Individuals in Minneapolis, St. Paul, and the surrounding Hennepin or Ramsey County areas often have questions about these specific legal standards. Here are answers to some frequently asked questions.

What is the main purpose of Minnesota Statute § 609.347?

This statute establishes specific rules of evidence for criminal sexual conduct prosecutions in Minnesota. Its main purposes are to ensure fair trials, protect victims from irrelevant and prejudicial inquiries (especially regarding prior sexual conduct via the Rape Shield provisions), and guide courts on issues like victim testimony, resistance, and jury instructions.

Does a victim’s testimony need to be corroborated by other evidence in a Minnesota CSC case?

No. Under § 609.347, Subdivision 1, the testimony of a victim in a CSC prosecution does not need to be corroborated. A conviction can be based on the victim’s testimony alone if a jury finds it credible beyond a reasonable doubt.

Does the prosecution have to prove the victim physically resisted the accused in a St. Paul CSC trial?

No. Section 609.347, Subdivision 2, states there is no need to show that the victim resisted the accused. The law recognizes that victims may not resist for many reasons, and lack of resistance does not imply consent.

What is Minnesota’s Rape Shield Law (related to § 609.347, Subd. 3)?

This refers to the provisions in Subdivision 3 that generally prohibit admitting evidence of a victim’s previous sexual conduct. It’s designed to prevent the victim from being put on trial for their past and to keep the focus on the defendant’s alleged actions. There are very narrow, specific exceptions.

When can evidence of a victim’s previous sexual conduct be admitted in a Hennepin County CSC case?

It’s rarely admissible. Exceptions include: (1) When consent is a defense, evidence of the victim’s prior fabricated allegations of sexual assault (if proven fabricated), or evidence of prior sexual conduct between the victim and the accused. (2) To show an alternative source if the prosecution introduces evidence of semen, pregnancy, or disease. Strict procedures must be followed under Subdivision 4.

What procedure must a defendant follow to try and introduce evidence of a victim’s prior sexual conduct?

Under § 609.347, Subdivision 4, the accused must file a written motion at least three business days before trial detailing the evidence. If the judge deems the offer sufficient, a hearing is held outside the jury’s presence. The judge then decides if the evidence is admissible under the strict criteria of Subdivision 3.

Are there any jury instructions that are forbidden in Minnesota CSC cases?

Yes. Subdivision 5 prohibits instructions that suggest: prior consent with others makes current consent more likely; a victim’s sexual conduct affects their credibility; CSC is easily charged but hard to disprove; or a victim’s testimony should be scrutinized more closely than other witnesses.

Can a victim’s therapy records or mental health history be used as evidence in a Minneapolis CSC trial?

Generally, no, especially if it’s a case involving a psychotherapist and patient (Subdivision 6). Evidence of a patient-victim’s personal or medical history is not admissible unless the accused requests a hearing, proves its relevancy, and the court finds its probative value outweighs its prejudicial value. Only specific, court-approved information can be admitted.

How does § 609.347 affect Minnesota Rule of Evidence 412?

Minnesota Statute § 609.347, Subdivision 7, states that Rule 412 of the Minnesota Rules of Evidence (which also addresses a victim’s previous sexual conduct) is superseded to the extent it conflicts with this statute. This means § 609.347 is the controlling authority on these specific evidentiary issues in CSC cases.

If consent is the defense, is the victim’s sexual history with other people relevant?

Generally, no. The Rape Shield Law (Subd. 3) specifically aims to prevent this. A victim’s sexual conduct with persons other than the accused is not considered relevant to whether they consented to sexual activity with the accused on a particular occasion, unless it falls under the extremely narrow exception of proving prior fabricated allegations.

Why is it important that victim resistance doesn’t need to be shown?

This recognizes that victims react to trauma in different ways. Some may freeze, comply out of fear of greater violence, or be unable to resist due to intoxication or other factors. Requiring proof of resistance would unfairly blame victims for their responses to an assault.

Can the defense argue that because a victim didn’t report immediately, their testimony is less credible?

While this statute doesn’t directly address the timing of a report, arguments about delayed reporting are often scrutinized. The focus of § 609.347 is on what happens in court. However, Subdivision 5(d) generally supports that a victim’s testimony shouldn’t be scrutinized more than any other witness, which could indirectly apply to arguments about reporting timelines if they are framed as inherent credibility attacks.

What if new evidence about a victim’s prior sexual conduct is discovered during the trial in Ramsey County?

Section 609.347, Subdivision 4(d) allows the accused to make an offer of proof if new information is discovered during trial that might make such evidence admissible. The court would then hold an in camera (private) hearing to determine admissibility by the same strict standards.

Does this statute apply to all types of criminal cases in Minnesota?

No, Minnesota Statute § 609.347 specifically applies to prosecutions under the criminal sexual conduct statutes (sections 609.342 to 609.3451), engaging in sexual acts with minors (609.3453), sexual extortion (609.3458), and certain other related offenses listed.

How can a lawyer help navigate these complex evidence rules in a Twin Cities CSC case?

An attorney knowledgeable in Minnesota CSC law and evidentiary rules is crucial. They can ensure the Rape Shield Law is properly applied, file or respond to motions about evidence admissibility, challenge improper questioning, ensure jury instructions are correct, and build a defense or prosecution strategy that effectively works within these specific legal parameters.

Long-Term Impact of Minnesota’s Evidentiary Rules on Criminal Sexual Conduct Justice

The evidentiary rules enshrined in Minnesota Statute § 609.347 have a lasting and significant impact on the pursuit of justice in criminal sexual conduct cases throughout the state, including the heavily populated Twin Cities metropolitan area. These rules are not static legal text; they actively shape how cases are investigated, prosecuted, and defended, influencing trial outcomes and public confidence in the legal system’s ability to handle these uniquely sensitive and challenging matters fairly.

Promoting Fairer Trials and Protecting Victim Dignity

One of the most profound long-term impacts of § 609.347, particularly its Rape Shield provisions (Subdivision 3), is the increased protection of victim dignity and privacy. By strictly limiting the introduction of a victim’s prior sexual history, the law helps prevent trials in Minneapolis or St. Paul from becoming traumatizing attacks on the victim’s character, unrelated to the specific allegations against the defendant. This encourages victims to come forward and participate in the justice process without fear of irrelevant public scrutiny of their private lives, thereby fostering a system perceived as more just and humane.

Focusing Adjudication on Relevant Evidence

The statute’s clear guidelines on corroboration (Subdivision 1), resistance (Subdivision 2), and prohibited jury instructions (Subdivision 5) help ensure that court proceedings in Hennepin, Ramsey, and other counties focus on the relevant facts and evidence of the alleged crime. By removing archaic requirements for corroboration or proof of resistance, and by disallowing prejudicial jury instructions based on myths, the law directs the trier of fact (judge or jury) to make decisions based on the credible evidence presented about the specific incident, rather than on societal biases or misconceptions about sexual assault. This leads to more reliable and fact-based verdicts.

Ensuring Due Process for the Accused

While many provisions of § 609.347 are aimed at protecting victims, the statute also upholds the due process rights of the accused. The detailed procedures in Subdivision 4 for offering evidence of a victim’s prior sexual conduct, though strict, provide a pathway for defendants to introduce genuinely relevant evidence under specific, limited circumstances (e.g., prior sexual history with the accused when consent is at issue). This structured process ensures that a defendant’s right to present a defense is not entirely abrogated, but is carefully balanced against the potential for prejudice and harassment of the victim.

Shaping Legal Precedent and Trial Strategies

Over time, the application and interpretation of § 609.347 by Minnesota courts contribute to a body of case law that further refines how evidence is handled in CSC cases. This evolving legal precedent guides prosecutors and defense attorneys in the Twin Cities area in developing their trial strategies, from pre-trial motions regarding evidence admissibility to the questioning of witnesses and arguments made to the jury. The statute thus fosters a more predictable and principled approach to evidentiary issues in these complex prosecutions, contributing to the consistent administration of justice.

The Indispensable Role of Legal Counsel in Applying Minnesota’s CSC Evidentiary Rules

Navigating the intricate web of evidentiary rules set forth in Minnesota Statute § 609.347 is a formidable task, demanding a high level of legal knowledge and trial experience. For both the prosecution and the defense in criminal sexual conduct cases within Minneapolis, St. Paul, and the broader Twin Cities judicial districts like Hennepin and Ramsey counties, the effective application of these rules is paramount to achieving a just outcome. The involvement of skilled legal counsel is therefore not just beneficial, but indispensable.

Mastering the Nuances of Minnesota’s Rape Shield Law (Subdivision 3 & 4)

The provisions regarding the admissibility of a victim’s prior sexual conduct are among the most complex and impactful aspects of § 609.347. Defense counsel must understand the extremely narrow exceptions that might permit such evidence and the rigorous procedural hurdles (Subdivision 4) that must be cleared even to make an offer of proof. This includes drafting precise pre-trial motions and persuasively arguing the relevance and probative value versus prejudicial impact at in camera hearings. Conversely, prosecutors must be prepared to vigorously oppose the introduction of such evidence if it does not meet the statute’s stringent criteria, thereby protecting the victim from improper and harassing inquiries.

Strategically Addressing Victim Testimony and Lack of Corroboration/Resistance (Subdivision 1 & 2)

Given that a victim’s testimony alone can support a conviction and that proof of resistance is unnecessary, legal counsel must adapt their strategies accordingly. For the prosecution, this means preparing the victim to provide clear, consistent, and credible testimony. For defense attorneys in Twin Cities courtrooms, it necessitates skillful and ethical cross-examination designed to test the victim’s account without resorting to prohibited tactics or character attacks. Understanding that the legal framework does not require corroboration or resistance allows counsel to focus on other legally relevant aspects of the case, such as inconsistencies in testimony, motive, or the presence of reasonable doubt.

Ensuring Compliance with Prohibited Jury Instructions (Subdivision 5)

Experienced legal counsel plays a vital role during the charging conference, where jury instructions are finalized. Attorneys for both sides must ensure that the instructions given by the court accurately reflect the law and do not include any of the prohibited instructions outlined in Subdivision 5. This prevents the jury from being swayed by outdated myths or biases regarding sexual assault victims or the nature of CSC charges. Objecting to improper instructions or ensuring necessary correct instructions are given is crucial for a fair trial and for preserving issues for any potential appeal.

Litigating Issues of Psychotherapy Evidence (Subdivision 6)

In the specific and sensitive context of CSC cases involving psychotherapists and patients, the rules around admitting a patient-victim’s personal or medical history are tightly controlled. Legal counsel for the accused must follow the precise procedural steps if seeking to introduce such evidence, demonstrating its direct relevance and that its probative value outweighs prejudice. Prosecuting attorneys, in turn, must be prepared to protect the victim’s privacy by challenging attempts to introduce irrelevant or overly broad historical information. Navigating these hearings effectively in Hennepin or Ramsey County courts requires a nuanced understanding of both evidentiary law and privacy rights.