of people served
rated by clients
available to help
Minnesota Statute § 609.347 plays a crucial role in shaping how Criminal Sexual Conduct (CSC) cases are tried in the state’s courts. This statute doesn’t define a crime itself but establishes specific rules of evidence that apply uniquely to prosecutions under the main CSC statutes (§§ 609.342-3451), the sexual extortion statute (§ 609.3458), the criminal sexual predatory conduct statute (§ 609.3453), the statute regarding soliciting children (§ 609.365), and certain older sentencing laws. Its primary purpose is to ensure fair trials by focusing on relevant evidence pertaining to the alleged incident while protecting participants, particularly victims, from irrelevant, prejudicial, or harassing inquiries, especially concerning their past sexual history.
A central component of § 609.347 is Minnesota’s “Rape Shield Law” (found primarily in subdivisions 3 and 4), which strictly limits the admissibility of evidence about a victim’s prior sexual conduct. Beyond the rape shield provisions, the statute also addresses other critical evidentiary points: it clarifies that a victim’s testimony does not legally require corroboration to support a conviction, eliminates any requirement to show the victim physically resisted the accused, prohibits certain outdated and biased jury instructions, and sets specific procedures for handling evidence related to psychotherapy history in cases involving therapists. These rules collectively aim to modernize CSC trials, focusing them on the alleged criminal conduct rather than outdated notions or irrelevant personal histories.
Minnesota Statute § 609.347 sets forth special evidentiary rules that govern prosecutions for specific sexual offenses, superseding general evidence rules like Minnesota Rule of Evidence 412 where they conflict. These rules are designed to manage the unique sensitivities and potential prejudices inherent in sexual assault cases. Key provisions include stating that a victim’s testimony alone can be sufficient for conviction without needing external corroboration, and that proof of physical resistance by the victim is unnecessary to establish lack of consent. The most prominent feature is the state’s Rape Shield Law, which creates a strong presumption against admitting evidence of a victim’s past sexual conduct, allowing it only in very narrow, specific circumstances after a rigorous court screening process.
Furthermore, § 609.347 explicitly prohibits judges from giving certain types of jury instructions that reflect historical biases, such as suggesting a victim with a sexual past is more likely to consent, that a victim’s sexual history impacts their credibility inherently, that CSC is easily charged but hard to disprove, or that a victim’s testimony requires more scrutiny than other witnesses. The statute also lays out specific procedures involving pre-trial motions and closed hearings that must be followed before any evidence potentially falling under the narrow exceptions to the Rape Shield Law, or certain evidence regarding a patient’s history in cases involving psychotherapists, can even be considered for admission. These rules aim to ensure trials focus on relevant facts pertaining to the alleged crime.
Minnesota Statute § 609.347 establishes specific rules governing the admissibility and use of certain types of evidence in prosecutions for Criminal Sexual Conduct and related offenses. It addresses victim testimony, resistance, prior sexual conduct (Rape Shield Law), jury instructions, and psychotherapy evidence, aiming to ensure fair trials focused on relevant facts.
609.347 EVIDENCE IN CRIMINAL SEXUAL CONDUCT CASES.
Subdivision 1. Victim testimony; corroboration unnecessary. In a prosecution under sections 609.342 to 609.3451; 609.3453; 609.3458; or Minnesota Statutes 2004, section 609.109, the testimony of a victim need not be corroborated.
Subd. 2. Showing of resistance unnecessary. In a prosecution under sections 609.342 to 609.3451; 609.3453; 609.3458; or Minnesota Statutes 2004, section 609.109, there is no need to show that the victim resisted the accused.
Subd. 3. Previous sexual conduct. In a prosecution under sections 609.342 to 609.3451; 609.3453; 609.3458; 609.365; or Minnesota Statutes 2004, section 609.109, evidence of the victim’s previous sexual conduct shall not be admitted nor shall any reference to such conduct be made in the presence of the jury, except by court order under the procedure provided in subdivision 4. The evidence can be admitted only if the probative value of the evidence is not substantially outweighed by its inflammatory or prejudicial nature and only in the circumstances set out in paragraphs (a) and (b). For the evidence to be admissible under paragraph (a), subsection (i), the judge must find by a preponderance of the evidence that the facts set out in the accused’s offer of proof are true. For the evidence to be admissible under paragraph (a), subsection (ii) or paragraph (b), the judge must find that the evidence is sufficient to support a finding that the facts set out in the accused’s offer of proof are true, as provided under Rule 901 of the Rules of Evidence.
(a) When consent of the victim is a defense in the case, the following evidence is admissible:
(i) evidence of the victim’s previous sexual conduct tending to establish a common scheme or plan of similar sexual conduct under circumstances similar to the case at issue. In order to find a common scheme or plan, the judge must find that the victim made prior allegations of sexual assault which were fabricated; and
(ii) evidence of the victim’s previous sexual conduct with the accused.
(b) When the prosecution’s case includes evidence of semen, pregnancy, or disease at the time of the incident or, in the case of pregnancy, between the time of the incident and trial, evidence of specific instances of the victim’s previous sexual conduct is admissible solely to show the source of the semen, pregnancy, or disease.
Subd. 4. Accused offer of evidence. The accused may not offer evidence described in subdivision 3 except pursuant to the following procedure:
(a) A motion shall be made by the accused at least three business days prior to trial, unless later for good cause shown, setting out with particularity the offer of proof of the evidence that the accused intends to offer, relative to the previous sexual conduct of the victim;
(b) If the court deems the offer of proof sufficient, the court shall order a hearing out of the presence of the jury, if any, and in such hearing shall allow the accused to make a full presentation of the offer of proof;
(c) At the conclusion of the hearing, if the court finds that the evidence proposed to be offered by the accused regarding the previous sexual conduct of the victim is admissible under subdivision 3 and that its probative value is not substantially outweighed by its inflammatory or prejudicial nature, the court shall make an order stating the extent to which evidence is admissible. The accused may then offer evidence pursuant to the order of the court;
(d) If new information is discovered after the date of the hearing or during the course of trial, which may make evidence described in subdivision 3 admissible, the accused may make an offer of proof pursuant to clause (a) and the court shall order an in camera hearing to determine whether the proposed evidence is admissible by the standards herein.
Subd. 5. Prohibiting instructing jury on certain points. In a prosecution under sections 609.342 to 609.3451; 609.3453; 609.3458; or Minnesota Statutes 2004, section 609.109, the court shall not instruct the jury to the effect that:
(a) it may be inferred that a victim who has previously consented to sexual intercourse with persons other than the accused would be therefore more likely to consent to sexual intercourse again; or
(b) the victim’s previous or subsequent sexual conduct in and of itself may be considered in determining the credibility of the victim; or
(c) criminal sexual conduct is a crime easily charged by a victim but very difficult to disprove by an accused because of the heinous nature of the crime; or
(d) the jury should scrutinize the testimony of the victim any more closely than it should scrutinize the testimony of any witness in any felony prosecution.
Subd. 6. Psychotherapy evidence. (a) In a prosecution under sections 609.342 to 609.3451; 609.3453; 609.3458; or Minnesota Statutes 2004, section 609.109, involving a psychotherapist and patient, evidence of the patient’s personal or medical history is not admissible except when:
(1) the accused requests a hearing at least three business days prior to trial and makes an offer of proof of the relevancy of the history; and
(2) the court finds that the history is relevant and that the probative value of the history outweighs its prejudicial value.
(b) The court shall allow the admission only of specific information or examples of conduct of the victim that are determined by the court to be relevant. The court’s order shall detail the information or conduct that is admissible and no other evidence of the history may be introduced.
(c) Violation of the terms of the order is grounds for mistrial but does not prevent the retrial of the accused.
Subd. 7. Effect of statute on rules. Rule 412 of the Rules of Evidence is superseded to the extent of its conflict with this section.
Minnesota Statute § 609.347 establishes several distinct rules that govern the conduct of trials for Criminal Sexual Conduct and certain related offenses. These rules address long-standing issues in sexual assault prosecutions regarding victim testimony, historical biases, and the admissibility of potentially prejudicial information. They aim to ensure that trials focus on the relevant events and evidence pertaining to the specific criminal charge, rather than getting sidetracked by irrelevant or inflammatory material, particularly concerning the complainant’s past.
The evidentiary rules established in Minnesota Statute § 609.347 significantly shape the landscape of Criminal Sexual Conduct prosecutions within the state. They represent a legislative effort to modernize trials, protect participants from undue prejudice, and focus legal proceedings on the specific allegations at hand. These rules directly impact the types of evidence attorneys can seek to introduce, the arguments they can make, and the instructions juries receive from the judge.
The rules in Minnesota Statute § 609.347 dictate what information is allowed or disallowed in court during a Criminal Sexual Conduct trial. They act as filters, aiming to ensure the jury makes its decision based on evidence directly related to the alleged crime, rather than being swayed by irrelevant personal history or outdated biases. These rules affect how both the prosecution and defense present their cases.
For instance, the prosecution doesn’t need to find extra witnesses just to back up the victim’s account (though they often will if possible), nor do they need to show the victim fought back physically. Conversely, the defense is heavily restricted from asking the victim about past partners or sexual experiences, unless it falls into very specific, pre-approved exceptions concerning the defendant or physical evidence. The following examples illustrate how these rules might play out in a courtroom setting.
During cross-examination in a CSC trial where the defense is consent, the defense attorney attempts to ask the complainant about their dating history and the number of sexual partners they had prior to meeting the defendant. The prosecutor immediately objects, citing Minnesota Statute § 609.347, subdivision 3. The judge sustains the objection, ruling that the complainant’s sexual history with third parties is irrelevant to whether they consented to the specific act with the defendant in this instance and is inadmissible under the Rape Shield Law.
The defendant is charged with CSC 3 (§ 609.344) alleged by someone they had a previous intermittent sexual relationship with. The defense strategy is consent. Following the procedure in § 609.347, subdivision 4, the defense files a pre-trial motion seeking to introduce specific evidence detailing prior consensual sexual encounters between the defendant and this specific complainant. The judge holds a closed hearing. Finding that this specific evidence is relevant to the contested issue of consent in the context of their particular relationship, and determining its probative value is not substantially outweighed by prejudice in this instance, the judge issues an order allowing the defense to present limited, specific evidence about those prior encounters pursuant to § 609.347(3)(a)(ii).
In a CSC 1 case (§ 609.342), the prosecution’s evidence includes DNA analysis matching semen found on the complainant to the defendant. The defense files a motion under § 609.347(4) seeking to introduce evidence that the complainant had consensual sex with a different partner a few hours after the alleged assault but before the medical examination where the sample was collected. The defense argues this evidence is admissible under § 609.347(3)(b) solely to suggest an alternative source for the semen evidence presented by the state. After a hearing, the judge likely finds this specific evidence admissible for that limited purpose, instructing the jury accordingly.
At the close of a CSC trial, during the discussion about jury instructions, the defense attorney requests that the judge include an instruction cautioning the jury that charges of this nature are easily made and difficult to defend against. The judge refuses this request, citing Minnesota Statute § 609.347, subdivision 5(c), which explicitly prohibits the court from giving such an instruction, as it reflects an outdated and improper bias. The judge instead gives standard instructions regarding the presumption of innocence, the burden of proof, and witness credibility applicable to all witnesses equally.
While Minnesota Statute § 609.347 places significant restrictions on certain types of defense evidence, particularly regarding a victim’s past sexual conduct, it also serves as a shield that both sides can use to ensure the trial adheres to rules of relevance and fairness. Defense counsel can utilize the statute to object to improper evidence or arguments presented by the prosecution, ensure strict compliance with procedural requirements, and argue vigorously about the admissibility standards (relevance, prejudice) when evidence is proposed under one of the exceptions.
The focus for the defense often shifts from trying to broadly attack a victim’s character through past conduct (which the statute prohibits) to meticulously ensuring the prosecution’s case is built solely on admissible evidence directly related to the charged incident. It also involves strategically using the procedures within § 609.347 when seeking to admit evidence that does fall within a recognized exception, such as prior conduct between the accused and the complainant relevant to a consent defense, or evidence challenging the source of physical evidence. Mastery of these rules is critical for effective advocacy on either side.
Even with Rape Shield rules, subtle attempts might be made to influence the jury based on character or history.
The statute mandates specific procedures for seeking admission of sensitive evidence, which must be followed strictly.
Even if proposed evidence technically fits an exception, its admissibility still depends on a balancing test.
Ensuring the judge adheres to the prohibited instructions is crucial for a fair verdict.
It’s a law establishing special rules of evidence specifically for Criminal Sexual Conduct (CSC) prosecutions (§§ 609.342-3458, etc.). It covers victim testimony, resistance, admissibility of prior sexual conduct (Rape Shield Law), jury instructions, and psychotherapy evidence.
Found primarily in § 609.347, subdivisions 3 and 4, it generally prohibits admitting evidence of a victim’s past sexual conduct in a CSC trial. It has very narrow exceptions, such as prior conduct with the accused when consent is the defense, or evidence showing an alternative source of physical evidence, and requires strict court procedures before admission.
Yes. § 609.347, subdivision 1 explicitly states that the testimony of a victim in a CSC prosecution “need not be corroborated.” A conviction can legally be based on the victim’s testimony alone if found credible beyond a reasonable doubt.
No. § 609.347, subdivision 2 states there is “no need to show that the victim resisted the accused.” Lack of resistance does not imply consent under Minnesota law.
Only in very limited circumstances under § 609.347(3): (1) evidence suggesting prior fabricated allegations by the victim (very high bar); (2) evidence of prior sexual conduct between the victim and the accused if consent is the defense; or (3) evidence solely to show an alternative source of semen, pregnancy, or disease. Even then, it requires court approval after a hearing (Subd. 4) and must be more probative than prejudicial.
The accused must file a specific written motion pre-trial (Subd. 4). If the judge finds the initial request potentially valid, a closed hearing is held where the defense presents its offer of proof. The judge then decides if the evidence meets the strict exceptions in Subd. 3 and if its value outweighs prejudice, issuing an order specifying what, if any, evidence is allowed.
§ 609.347, subdivision 5 prohibits instructions suggesting: prior consent implies future consent; past sexual conduct affects credibility itself; CSC is easily charged/hard to disprove; or that the victim’s testimony needs more scrutiny than other witnesses.
Yes. Subdivision 6 generally bars evidence of the patient’s personal or medical history unless the accused follows a pre-trial motion/hearing process similar to Subd. 4, and the court finds the specific history relevant and more probative than prejudicial, limiting admission strictly to court-approved details.
The statute explicitly lists the sections it applies to, mainly §§ 609.342-3451, 609.3453, 609.3458, 609.365, and a former statute. It may not apply to other sex-related offenses not listed (e.g., prostitution, some indecent exposure statutes), which would be governed by general evidence rules (including Rule 412).
It aims to balance by generally shielding victims from irrelevant inquiries into past sexual conduct (protection) while providing narrow, specific exceptions (prior conduct with accused, alternative source, fabricated allegations) allowing defendants to present potentially relevant evidence critical to their defense, subject to judicial oversight.
Yes, potentially, but under a very high standard (§ 609.347(3)(a)(i)). The defense must make an offer of proof suggesting a “common scheme or plan” of similar conduct, and the judge must find by a preponderance of the evidence (in the closed hearing) that the victim actually fabricated prior allegations. This is much harder than simply suggesting prior claims were made.
Evidence of the victim’s previous sexual conduct with the accused may be admissible under § 609.347(3)(a)(ii) if consent is the defense in the current case. The accused must still follow the procedure in Subd. 4, and the judge must find the evidence relevant and not unduly prejudicial.
This refers to evidence under § 609.347(3)(b) showing the victim engaged in other specific sexual conduct that could explain the presence of physical evidence (semen, pregnancy, disease) attributed by the prosecution to the defendant. It’s admitted only to show another possible source, not to comment on the victim’s character.
Legislatures recognized that sexual assaults often happen in private with no other witnesses, and requiring corroboration could prevent valid cases from proceeding. The law trusts jurors to assess credibility based on testimony and other evidence presented, as they do in other criminal cases.
Subdivision 5 aims to prevent juries from relying on outdated, harmful myths and stereotypes about sexual assault victims (e.g., “she asked for it,” “victims always resist,” “women lie about rape”). It directs juries to evaluate CSC cases based on evidence and standard legal principles, not biases.
Minnesota Statute § 609.347, by setting specific evidentiary boundaries for Criminal Sexual Conduct trials, has a significant long-term impact on how these cases are investigated, prosecuted, defended, and ultimately perceived by the justice system and the public. Its provisions, particularly the Rape Shield rule, aim to foster fairer trials focused on relevant evidence, encourage victim participation, and move away from historical biases that often plagued sexual assault prosecutions.
One of the most crucial intended impacts of the Rape Shield provisions (Subd. 3 & 4) is to encourage victims to report sexual assault and participate in the criminal justice process without the fear that their unrelated private sexual history will be invasively scrutinized and used against them in court. By limiting defense inquiries into irrelevant past conduct, the law seeks to reduce re-victimization on the witness stand and assure complainants that the focus will remain on the alleged criminal acts of the accused, not their own personal lives. This protection is vital for facilitating prosecutions based on victim accounts.
The statute actively works to keep CSC trials focused on the core issues: did the alleged conduct occur, and was there legally valid consent (where applicable)? By excluding irrelevant evidence of a victim’s past sexual behavior with third parties and eliminating the need to prove resistance, § 609.347 prevents trials from devolving into character assassinations or explorations of unrelated events. This helps ensure that jury deliberations center on the evidence pertaining directly to the specific incident being prosecuted, leading to verdicts based on the merits of the case rather than prejudice or extraneous information.
While strongly protective of victims’ privacy, § 609.347 includes specific, narrow exceptions designed to uphold the defendant’s constitutional right to present a meaningful defense. Allowing evidence of prior conduct with the accused when consent is disputed, permitting evidence of alternative sources for physical findings, and retaining a (very high threshold) exception for proven prior fabrications attempts to strike this balance. The strict procedural requirements (Subd. 4) ensure that even potentially admissible evidence under these exceptions is carefully screened by a judge first, safeguarding against misuse while allowing genuinely relevant defense evidence.
The statute provides clear guidance for judges conducting CSC trials. It mandates specific procedures for handling sensitive evidence (Subd. 4, 6) and explicitly prohibits certain biased jury instructions (Subd. 5). This promotes consistency across courtrooms and ensures juries are instructed based on current law and neutral principles, rather than outdated myths or stereotypes about sexual assault victims or the nature of the crime. By shaping the evidence presented and the legal framework given to the jury, the statute aims to foster more informed and less biased deliberations based solely on the admissible evidence and applicable law.
Minnesota Statute § 609.347 is a cornerstone of litigating Criminal Sexual Conduct cases, and mastery of its specific evidentiary rules is absolutely essential for both prosecutors and defense attorneys. This statute dictates what evidence is admissible, what is presumptively excluded (especially victim’s prior sexual conduct), the procedures for attempting to introduce sensitive information, and how juries should (and should not) be instructed. An attorney handling a CSC case must have a thorough command of § 609.347 to effectively represent their client, whether that involves using the statute’s protections shield their client or navigating its exceptions to present crucial evidence.
CSC trials operate under evidentiary rules that differ significantly from other criminal cases due to § 609.347. Attorneys must understand the scope and limitations of the Rape Shield Law (Subd. 3), the strict procedures for offering evidence under its narrow exceptions (Subd. 4), the implications of the no-corroboration and no-resistance rules (Subd. 1 & 2), the specific prohibitions on jury instructions (Subd. 5), and the special rules for psychotherapy evidence (Subd. 6). Lack of familiarity with these specific provisions can lead to critical errors, such as failing to object to inadmissible evidence or improperly attempting to introduce evidence, potentially harming the client’s case significantly.
For defense attorneys, § 609.347 provides grounds to object vigorously if the prosecution attempts to improperly introduce evidence related to the defendant’s character or past through irrelevant inquiries about the victim, or otherwise violates the statute’s limitations. For prosecutors, the statute is crucial for objecting to defense attempts to circumvent the Rape Shield Law by introducing inadmissible evidence of the victim’s past sexual conduct or making arguments based on prohibited stereotypes. Effective use of objections based on § 609.347 is key to controlling the flow of information to the jury and ensuring the trial focuses only on legally relevant matters defined by the statute.
When evidence might fall under one of the narrow exceptions in Subd. 3 (e.g., prior conduct with accused, alternative source) or Subd. 6 (patient history), the attorney seeking admission must meticulously follow the procedures outlined in Subd. 4 or 6. This involves drafting a detailed pre-trial motion, making a compelling offer of proof, presenting arguments during the closed hearing about relevance and probative value versus prejudice, and strictly adhering to the scope of any resulting court order allowing admission. Conversely, the attorney opposing admission must be prepared to vigorously argue against admissibility during the hearing, highlighting prejudice and lack of relevance under the statute’s demanding standards.
Throughout the trial, attorneys on both sides monitor compliance with § 609.347. The defense ensures prohibited instructions under Subd. 5 are not given and that victim testimony isn’t unfairly bolstered by suggestions that lack of resistance or corroboration is irrelevant (when the statute simply says they aren’t required). The prosecution ensures the defense doesn’t subtly inject prohibited themes. Both sides work with the judge to craft final jury instructions that accurately reflect the law under § 609.347, ensuring the jury deliberates based on proper legal standards and admissible evidence, free from the influence of outdated biases or irrelevant information excluded by the statute.
