testify that, although the victim’s injuries could result from forceful intercourse, such intercourse could nonetheless be consensual. The prosecutor further proffered that Bryner-Brown would not testify that Rugebregt raped the victim. The trial court admonished the prosecutor to limit Bryner-Brown’s testimony accordingly. However, at trial Bryner-Brown testified that the victim’s injuries could not have resulted from consensual intercourse and that they were the kind usually associated with “forcible,” rather than the proffered “forceful,” penetration. Hence, whether or not it intended to do so, the prosecution elicited testimony that failed to fully and forthrightly comply with its Rule 16 obligation. Rule 16 provides: If at any time during the course of the proceedin h Ct.App.1990) (<HOLDING>). Rugebregt claims that, had the prosecutor
holding that plaintiff failed to exhaust administrative remedies by failing to include issue in case brief holding that the prisoner must exhaust his administrative remedies as to each defendant later sued holding that dismissal under 42 usc  1997ea was required even though case had gone to trial as inmate had failed to exhaust administrative remedies holding dismissal inappropriate because defendant failed to exhaust rule 16g remedies such as requesting continuance holding that a routine dismissal for failure to exhaust administrative remedies does not count as a strike under  1915g