We conclude suppression of the proffered evidence substantially impairs the State's ability to prosecute its case in chief. Consequently, appellate review of the district court's order is appropriate. The district court ruled the proffered evidence was inadmissible under Crossman because whether the proffered acts occurred prior to the acts charged is uncertain. Evidentiary rulings are normally within the sound discretion of the trial court. To resolve this particular issue, however, this court is required to interpret the law as stated in Crossman .
Questions of law are subject to unlimited review.
The discussion in Crossman did not focus on the specific testimony of the victim about prior sexual encounters with defendant. It focused on whether the testimony was offered for the purpose of establishing the relationship between the parties, the existence of a continuing course of conduct between the parties, or to corroborate the testimony of the complaining witness. 229 Kan. at 385-87. In fact, the victim in Crossman testified about other sexual acts between herself and defendant in general terms as opposed to specific accounts of dates, times, and places. 229 Kan. at 386-87.