State v. Wright

Summary

Justice Espinosa concurred in affirming the judgment but disagreed with the majority's conclusion that the trial court abused its discretion by excluding evidence concerning the victim's prior sexual transaction at another location. She reasoned that the prior transaction had no evidentiary connection to the defendant's later conduct, and therefore was neither relevant nor material to his consent defense. The concurrence maintains that the trial court acted within its discretion under the rape shield statute.