State v. Obeta, 2011 Minn. LEXIS 154

Obeta was convicted of first- and third-degree criminal sexual conduct under Minn. Stat. §§ 609.342, subd. 1(e)(i), and 609.344, subd. 1(c) (2010).
The court of appeals reversed the convictions for cumulative trial errors and remanded for a new trial (Obeta I).
On remand, the State sought to admit expert testimony on typical rape-victim behaviors to rebut Obeta’s consent defense; the district court denied the motion.
The issue centers on whether State v. Saldana prohibits expert testimony about typical rape-victim behaviors to rebut a defense that the sexual conduct was consensual.
The State presented experts on rape myths and typical victim behaviors, including delayed reporting, lack of injuries, and submissive conduct, as well as related studies and articles.
The majority reverses the district court, allowing the possibility of admissible expert testimony under Minn. R. Evid. 702, while reaffirming Saldana’s limits on credibility and rape-trauma-syndrome testimony.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admissibility under Saldana	Saldana should be overruled; expert testimony on typical rape-victim behaviors aids consent questions.	Saldana provides a blanket prohibition against such testimony.	Saldana not read as blanket prohibition; admissibility is case-specific under Rule 702.
Jurisdiction to hear pretrial appeal	State may pursue pretrial appeal to correct important evidentiary ruling.	Jurisdiction cannot be expanded beyond existing rules; core rule not satisfied.	Court has jurisdiction to review under inherent supervisory powers for this evidentiary question.
Standards for admissibility under Minn. R. Evid. 702	Proffered testimony about delayed reporting, lack of injury, and submissive conduct is relevant and helpful.	Saldana cautions against certain expert testimony; not all such testimony is admissible.	District court must assess relevance, reliability, helpfulness, and potential Frye-Mack considerations on remand.

State v. Saldana, 324 N.W.2d 227 (Minn. 1982) (initial per se prohibition on typical rape-victim behavior testimony)
State v. Hennum, 441 N.W.2d 793 (Minn. 1989) (expert testimony on battered-woman syndrome admissible to explain perception)
State v. Grecinger, 569 N.W.2d 189 (Minn. 1997) (expert testimony on battered-wrown syndrome admissible to explain delay in reporting)
State v. Myers, 359 N.W.2d 604 (Minn. 1984) (child-victim expert testimony to illuminate puzzling conduct)
State v. Underdahl, 767 N.W.2d 677 (Minn. 2009) (pretrial appeals and critical-impact rule)
State v. Kromah, 657 N.W.2d 564 (Minn. 2003) (inherent authority to hear pretrial appeals in certain circumstances)
People v. Hampton, 746 P.2d 947 (Colo. 1987) (education on rape-counterintuitive beliefs may aid juries)
Commonwealth v. Balodis, 560 Pa. 567 (Pa. 2000) (per se prohibition on counterintuitive victim-behavior testimony)