M.J. at 222 (quoting United States v. Colon-Angueira, 16 M.J. 20, 26 (C.M.A.1983)). Finally, if evidence is material and relevant, then it must be admitted when the accused can show that the evidence is more probative than the dangers of unfair prejudice. See M.R.E. 412(c)(3). Those dangers include concerns about “harassment, prejudice, confusion of the issues, the witness’ safety, or interrogation that is repetitive or only marginally relevant.” Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. at 679, 106 S.Ct. 1431. IV. In this case, the record indicated that CL did not want her marriage to end, which tends to show that she had a motive to fabricate about whether the sexual intercourse with Appellant was consensual, namely to protect her marriage. See United States v. Smith, 68 M.J. 445, 448-49 (C.A.A.F.2010) (<HOLDING>). The issue presented is whether Appellant was
holding that agreements established agency relationship holding evidence of prior drug use admissible to show motive and the nature of the defendants relationship with coconspirators holding evidence of past uncharged sexual encounters admissible in child sexual abuse case to show relationship between defendant and alleged victim recognizing that protecting an established relationship provides a motive to lie about the consensual nature of sexual encounters holding that a teachers consensual sexual relationship with a fifteenyearold student constituted a violation of the students substantive due process rights