Opinion ID: 1711295
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Particular Sexual Activity

Text: The defendant argues that evidence of the couple's marital digital-anal sexual activity is relevant to show that on prior occasions the complainant was not offended or humiliated by digital-anal sexual activity and that, if the alleged sexual assault had indeed occurred as suggested by the complainant, this would have been normal sexual activity for the couple. However, the victim's offense or humiliation is not an element of third-degree criminal sexual conduct. Moreover, the fact that the couple engaged in digital-anal sexual activity during their marriage before the alleged sexual assault is not probative of the defense theory that the alleged events on the night in question never occurred. The right to confront and cross-examine is not without limits. It does not include a right to cross-examine on irrelevant issues.  Arenda, 416 Mich. at 8, 330 N.W.2d 814. Exclusion of this evidence will not violate the defendant's constitutional rights. [10] We hold that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in precluding the defendant from introducing evidence of prior consensual digital-anal sexual activity, given its highly prejudicial nature and its nonexistent probative value.