Can Utah courts apply a heightened relevance standard to sexual history evidence? State v. Richardson Explained

The Utah Supreme Court’s decision in State v. Richardson provides crucial guidance for criminal defense attorneys seeking to introduce sexual history evidence under Utah Rule of Evidence 412(b)(2)(A). The court clarified that trial courts cannot impose a heightened relevance standard when evaluating such evidence.

Background and Facts

Richardson was charged with rape and forcible anal sodomy involving his former girlfriend. He sought to introduce evidence that he and the victim had previously engaged in consensual anal sex while she was menstruating, arguing this evidence was relevant to consent under Rule 412(b)(2)(A). The trial court excluded the evidence, ruling it was “not sufficiently relevant” because there was no evidence suggesting anal intercourse was presumptively nonconsensual or particularly degrading.

Key Legal Issues

The central issue was whether Rule 412(b)(2)(A) permits courts to apply a heightened relevance standard when evaluating sexual history evidence offered to prove consent. The defense argued that ordinary relevance standards under Rules 401 and 402 should apply, while the trial court’s ruling suggested additional requirements beyond basic relevance.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The Utah Supreme Court reversed, holding that the trial court misapplied the relevance standard. The court emphasized that Rule 401 establishes a “very low” bar for relevance, requiring only that evidence have “any tendency” to make a consequential fact more or less probable. Rule 412(b)(2)(A) incorporates this ordinary standard by requiring only that sexual history evidence be “otherwise admissible” under the rules of evidence. The court found Richardson’s proffered evidence clearly met this standard because prior consensual sexual conduct with the accused is inherently relevant to the issue of consent.

Practice Implications

This decision provides important protection for defendants’ rights to present relevant evidence in sexual assault cases. Defense attorneys should cite Richardson when trial courts attempt to exclude sexual history evidence based on insufficient relevance. The decision also clarifies that defendants need not testify to preserve Rule 412 challenges for appeal, distinguishing such claims from impeachment evidence challenges that require the defendant to take the stand.