United States v. Paul Cavanaugh, 30 F.4th 1139

March 15, 2018: Cavanaugh hosted a family gathering on the Spirit Lake Reservation; the victim (A.L.) became intoxicated and fell asleep in a bedroom.
While others were outside and locked out, Cavanaugh entered the bedroom and had vaginal intercourse with A.L. while she was semi‑conscious; she later awoke with him on top of her.
A.L. ran to her mother’s house afterward; her mother initially berated her and then A.L. attempted suicide by overdose the same day; a rape kit was performed.
A DNA Y‑chromosome profile from A.L.’s vaginal swab matched Cavanaugh’s buccal swab; Cavanaugh initially denied, later admitted intercourse but claimed it was consensual at trial.
Charged with sexual abuse of an incapacitated victim and aggravated sexual abuse by force; jury convicted on the incapacitated‑victim count and acquitted on the aggravated‑force count.
On appeal Cavanaugh challenged (1) admission of testimony about A.L.’s suicide attempt and (2) a district‑court warning that limited cross‑examination of A.L. and her mother.

Issue	Cavanaugh's Argument	Government's Argument	Held
Whether the district court erred under Fed. R. Evid. 403 by admitting testimony about A.L.’s suicide attempt	Testimony had minimal probative value to the charged offense, was highly prejudicial and inflammatory	The suicide attempt (and surrounding alcohol) was probative of A.L.’s ability to recall events, capacity to appreciate/decline conduct, and rebut consent	Admission not an abuse of discretion; close temporal/casual proximity made it probative and not unfairly prejudicial
Whether the court violated Cavanaugh’s Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights by limiting cross‑examination of A.L. and H.L.	The court’s warning chilled defense questioning about the mother–daughter fight and other context that could impeach credibility, depriving a complete defense	The court appropriately warned against probing impermissible sexual‑history lines; the warning was not an explicit preclusion and the contested facts were presented elsewhere	No constitutional violation; warning did not amount to an improper exclusion, no clear abuse of discretion, and no prejudice shown

United States v. Keys, 918 F.3d 982 (8th Cir. 2019) (review of district court evidentiary rulings for abuse of discretion)
United States v. Zephier, 989 F.3d 629 (8th Cir. 2021) (exclusion of rebuttal evidence can deprive defendant of a complete defense)
United States v. Fechner, 952 F.3d 954 (8th Cir. 2020) (Rule 403 bars evidence that is unfairly prejudicial, not merely unfavorable)
United States v. Dennis, 625 F.2d 782 (8th Cir. 1980) (appellate deference to trial judge who saw and heard evidence)
United States v. White, 557 F.3d 855 (8th Cir. 2009) (de novo review where constitutional rights implicated in evidentiary rulings)
United States v. Gustafson, 528 F.3d 587 (8th Cir. 2008) (reversal for limiting cross‑examination only when substantial rights affected)