State v. Richardson, 2013 UT 50

Richardson was convicted of vaginal rape and forcible anal sodomy; the exclusion of sexual history evidence under Rule 412(b)(2)(A) is challenged.
The victim testified to a violent incident where Richardson allegedly forced her to have oral, vaginal, and anal sex amid a prior argument.
Pretrial, Richardson sought to admit specific past consensual sexual conduct with the victim to prove consent; the trial court barred detailed instances but allowed general sexual-history context.
The trial court ruled that detailed prior anal-sex evidence was not sufficiently relevant under Rule 412(b)(2)(A).
On appeal, the Utah Supreme Court reverses, holding the exclusion was a misapplication of Rule 412 and remands for a new trial.
The ruling focuses on whether Rule 412(b)(2)(A) evidence is admissible if it is otherwise admissible under the rules, and that relevance is judged broadly.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Rule 412(b)(2)(A) admissibility requires heightened relevance.	Richardson argues 412(b)(2)(A) admits such evidence to prove consent.	State contends the evidence is not sufficiently relevant under 401/402.	No heightened relevance; evidence admissible if otherwise applicable.
Whether trial court misapplied Rule 412 and 401/402 in excluding evidence.	Evidence is relevant to consent and contextualizes the relationship.	Court properly limited relevance to protect privacy and avoid prejudice.	Court erred; exclusion based on misreading relevance; reverse, remand.
Whether Richardson waived the Rule 412 claim by not testifying.	Waiver rule for impeachment evidence does not apply to 412 evidence.	Richardson invited error by how he framed the request and use of the evidence.	No waiver; the error was not invited.
Whether the error was prejudicial and warranted a new trial.	Excluded evidence could have altered the verdict given credibility issues.	Error not prejudicial if the verdict stands on substantial evidence.	Prejudicial; new trial warranted.

State v. Tarrats, 122 P.3d 581 (Utah 2005) (exceptions to Rule 412 admissibility for specific acts)
State v. Yenser, 889 N.E.2d 581 (Ohio Ct. App. 2008) (consensual anal sex evidence relevant to consent)
Michigan v. Lucas, 500 U.S. 145 (Supreme Court 1991) (prior sexual conduct with the accused relevant to consent)
United States v. Ramone, 218 F.3d 1229 (10th Cir. 2000) (prior relationship evidence fits 412 context)
Wood v. Alaska, 957 F.2d 1544 (9th Cir. 1992) (prior acts with defendant relevant to consent)
State v. Jaeger, 973 P.2d 404 (Utah 1999) (low bar for relevance in evidence rules)
Barrientos ex rel. Nelson v. Jones, 282 P.3d 50 (Utah 2012) (review of trial court interpretation of evidence rules)