State v. Kroshus

How courts have described this case

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

• stating that the adult victim had a developmental disability and “was not educated about sexual matters”
• stating that there was medical testimony that the victim had experienced vaginal penetration
• stating that the district court erred in excluding evidence of prior sexual abuse where the jury “could infer that [the victim] could not have made the 10 allegations involving [defendant] unless the events she described had occurred”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).