State v. Richardson

Justice LEE,

opinion of the Court:

{1 Cameron Richardson appeals from convictions for rape and forcible anal sodomy. He claims error in his trial in the exclusion of evidence of the specific nature of his prior sexual relationship with the vietim-evidence he claims was properly admissible under Utah Rule of Evidence 412(b)@Q)(A). We agree. We hold that the trial court misconstrued this rule to incorporate a heightened standard of relevance, and we reverse and remand for a new trial.

I

{2 In February 2010, Richardson lived with the victim and her two young children from a previous relationship.…