State v. Richardson, 308 P.3d 526

Richardson convicted of rape and forcible anal sodomy; trial excluded specific prior sexual behavior with victim under Rule 412(b)(2)(A).
Defense sought to admit consensual prior acts with victim to prove consent and to impeach the victim’s testimony.
Trial court limited to general sexual relationship evidence, excluding detailed prior anal intercourse during menstruation as too irrelevant.
State did not argue that anal intercourse was non-consensual or that admission was necessary to counter prejudice; Richardson did not testify.
Court held exclusion error under 412(b)(2)(A); reversed and remanded for a new trial on timely appeal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admissibility of specific past sexual acts to prove consent under Rule 412(b)(2)(A).	Richardson—admissible to prove consent.	State—requires heightened relevancy or 403 balancing.	Admissible; trial court erred in excluding.
Was the error waived or invited by Richardson?	Richardson did not invite the error.	Error invited via defense strategy.	Not waived; error reversible.
Did exclusion undermine the verdict requiring reversal?	Excluded evidence would likely sway credibility.	Jury could assess credibility without it.	Yes; reversals warranted.

State v. Tarrats, 122 P.3d 581 (Utah 2005) (exception under 412(b) for consent evidence admissible when otherwise admissible)
State v. Jaeger, 973 P.2d 404 (Utah 1999) (relevance rules are low bar; evidence of relevance presumptively admissible)
Barrientos ex rel. Nelson v. Jones, 282 P.3d 50 (Utah 2012) (interpretation of evidence rules; standard of review)
State v. Clopten, 223 P.3d 1103 (Utah 2009) (harmful error may require new trial if reasonable likelihood of different outcome)
State v. Yenser, 889 N.E.2d 581 (Ohio Ct. App. 2008) (contextualizes prior consensual acts with accused to prove consent)