Opinion ID: 1884802
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: It must be reasonably close in time to the offense charged in the indictment;

Text: 4. The highly probative value of that evidence must substantially outweigh its collateral nature, the probability of undue prejudice to the victim in the eyes of the jury, confusion of the issues, or an unwarranted invasion of the victim's privacy; 5. When the proffered evidence predates the date of the charged offense by one year or more, the proffered evidence is presumed to be inadmissible; 6. To overcome that presumption, the defendant must produce clear and convincing proof that such evidence is admissible by tipping the balancing process in his or her favor. Adoption of the foregoing Rule 403 analysis would provide a well established and meaningful approach as compared to the amorphous continuing course of conduct standard adopted by the majority. Furthermore, the N.J.R.E. 403 analysis has been used consistently to conduct Rape Shield Law balancing. State v. Scherzer, supra, 301 N.J.Super. at 413, 694 A. 2d 196; State v. G.S., supra, 278 N.J.Super. at 161, 168-69, 650 A. 2d 819. The exclusion of evidence after a proper Rule 403 analysis is reversible error only if it is critical to the defense, as where there was no other available evidence to support defenses raised. State v. Scherzer, supra, 301 N.J.Super. at 414, 694 A. 2d 196. The evidence excluded by the trial court in this case was not critical to the defense. In addition to introducing evidence in respect of the three instances of prior sexual conduct of J.S., defendant presented other evidence through his testimony to support the defense of consent.