(1) evidence of the victim’s or of a witness’s past sexual conduct with the defendant; (2) evidence which shows that some person other than the defendant com mitted the act upon which the prosecution is founded; (3) evidence that the victim’s pregnancy at the time of trial was not caused by the defendant; or (4) evidence of conviction for a crime to impeach under Rule 6 ) (addressing a situation in which the defendant offered to prove the fact that the seven-year-old victim reportedly told his mother that he had previously been molested by another person and the similarity between the physical acts in the two instances and holding that the trial court properly excluded evidence of a prior molestation committed by a different person); Baughman v. State, 528 N.E.2d 78, 79 (Ind.1988) (<HOLDING>): Parrish v. State, 515 N.E.2d 516, 519-520
holding that evidence that would normally be admissible may be excluded if the evidence was a direct or indirect product of an unlawful search holding that evidence of prior molestation by a different person was the type of evidence which the legislature deemed should be excluded holding that where defendant stipulates to prior felony conviction evidence of the nature of the prior crime is irrelevant and should be excluded holding that any relevant mitigating evidence concerning a defendants character should not be excluded holding that the district court committed plain error by admitting evidence obtained in violation of the fourth amendment where the error did affect a substantial right of the defendants and the admission of evidence which should have been excluded did have a prejudicial impact on the jury