State of Iowa v. Lestine Pearl Martin

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• stating that evidence of a witness’s prior sexual conduct is assumed to be “highly prejudicial”
• “[E]vidence [of a victim’s prior sexual conduct] is . . . admissible ‘in all cases in which admission is constitutionally required by the 6 defendant’s right to due process, his right to confront his accusers, or his right to offer evidence in his own defense.’”
• “An error in excluding [defense] evidence is harmless only if the reviewing court is satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that if the evidence had been admitted and the damaging potential of the evidence fully realized, a reasonable jury would have reached the same verdict.” (quotation omitted)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).