Why Minnesota Sex Crime Cases Follow Different Rules

The Statute That Governs CSC Trials

Section 609.347, titled "Evidence in Criminal Sexual Conduct Cases," applies to prosecutions under the main CSC statutes (Minn. Stat. §§ 609.342 through 609.3451, plus 609.3453 and 609.3458). It does five distinct things, and it even overrides a rule of evidence where they conflict. Taken together, these provisions make a CSC trial meaningfully different from an ordinary felony trial.

How a CSC Case Differs From an Ordinary Criminal Case

1. The Complainant's Testimony Alone Can Convict (Subd. 1)

In many criminal cases, jurors instinctively look for corroboration — physical evidence, a second witness, something beyond one person's account. Minnesota law removes that expectation in CSC cases. Under subdivision 1, the testimony of the complainant need not be corroborated. A jury can convict on that testimony alone, with no physical evidence and no other witnesses. This is one of the most consequential features of a CSC prosecution, and it puts enormous weight on the credibility contest at the heart of the case.

2. No Showing of Resistance (Subd. 2)

Under subdivision 2, the state does not have to show that the complainant resisted. The absence of physical resistance is not a defense and cannot be argued as one. This forecloses a line of argument that people often assume is available.

3. The Rape-Shield Law and Its Strict Procedure (Subd. 3 and 4)

Minnesota's rape-shield rule bars evidence of the complainant's previous sexual conduct, and it does not simply discourage it — it prohibits any reference to it in front of the jury except by court order. The narrow openings exist only in specific circumstances: when consent is a defense and the evidence tends to show a common scheme or plan built on prior fabricated allegations, when it concerns previous conduct between the complainant and the accused, or when the prosecution has introduced evidence of semen, pregnancy, or disease and the evidence goes solely to the source.

But access to even those narrow openings runs through a strict procedure under subdivision 4:

• The accused must file a motion at least three business days before trial (later only for good cause), setting out the offer of proof with particularity.
• If the court finds the offer sufficient, it holds a hearing outside the jury's presence where the accused presents the full offer of proof.
• Only if the court then finds the evidence admissible and its probative value not substantially outweighed by its inflammatory or prejudicial nature will it issue an order stating exactly what may be used.

The practical point: the deadline is real and the gate is narrow. A defense theory that depends on this evidence can be lost entirely by missing the motion deadline or failing to make a sufficiently particularized offer of proof. This is procedural terrain where experience matters.

4. The Jury Instructions the Court Cannot Give (Subd. 5)

This provision surprises almost everyone, because it removes protections that once ran in the defendant's favor. Under subdivision 5, in a CSC prosecution the court shall not instruct the jury:

• that a complainant who previously consented to sex with others is therefore more likely to have consented again;
• that the complainant's prior or later sexual conduct, by itself, may be considered in judging credibility;
• that criminal sexual conduct is a crime easily charged but very difficult to disprove because of its heinous nature; or
• that the jury should scrutinize the complainant's testimony any more closely than it would any other witness in any felony case.

Those last two are the historically significant ones. Cautionary instructions of that kind once gave defendants a meaningful edge in these cases. Minnesota has taken them off the table by statute. A defense has to be built knowing the jury will not be told to approach the accusation with special caution.

5. Psychotherapist-Patient Cases (Subd. 6)

Where a CSC charge involves a psychotherapist and patient, the patient's personal or medical history is presumptively inadmissible, opening only through its own pretrial motion (again at least three business days before trial) and a court finding that the history is relevant and that its probative value outweighs its prejudicial value. Even then, the court admits only specific, court-approved information, and violating the order is grounds for a mistrial.

6. The Statute Overrides a Rule of Evidence (Subd. 7)

Finally, subdivision 7 provides that Rule 412 of the Minnesota Rules of Evidence is superseded to the extent it conflicts with § 609.347. In other words, where the general evidentiary rule and this CSC-specific statute diverge, the statute controls.

Why This Makes Professional Representation Matter

None of these rules is intuitive, and each one shapes how the case can be tried. A conviction can rest on testimony alone; resistance need not be shown; the most sensitive defense evidence is locked behind a short-deadline motion and an in-camera hearing; and the jury will never be told to view the accusation with special caution. A defense that does not account for all of this — on the prosecution's terms, on the prosecution's timeline — is a defense operating at a structural disadvantage. This is a large part of why criminal sexual conduct charges call for a lawyer who handles them and knows this terrain.

Key Terms

• Corroboration: Independent evidence supporting a witness's account. In CSC cases, it is not required (subd. 1).
• Rape-shield law: The rule barring evidence of a complainant's previous sexual conduct except through a strict court procedure (subd. 3 and 4).
• Offer of proof: A particularized statement of the evidence the defense intends to present, required to open the rape-shield procedure.
• In-camera hearing: A hearing held outside the jury's presence to decide admissibility in advance.
• Prohibited jury instructions: Cautionary instructions the court is forbidden to give in CSC cases (subd. 5).
• Rule 412: The general rule of evidence on a victim's sexual conduct, superseded by § 609.347 where they conflict (subd. 7).