tests for the three common date-rape drugs all came back negative, and all the witnesses testified that M.W. did not seem to be intoxicated. Indeed, even M.W. testified that she felt more tired than intoxicated. Thus, notwithstanding M.W.’s testimony, the record contains substantial evidence that appears to support appellant’s claim that he did not know or have reason to know that M.W. was physi cally helpless or that their sexual activity was nonconsensual. However, the language cited by appellant from Ani is mere dictum. State v. Folley, 378 N.W.2d 21, 25 (Minn.App.1985). The present state of the law in Minnesota is that a complainant’s testimony need not be corroborated in a prosecution for criminal sexual conduct. See State v. Halvorson, 506 N.W.2d 331, 335-36 (Minn.App.1993) (<HOLDING>); State v. Haala, 415 N.W.2d 69, 79
holding testimony of a 19yearold victim of criminal sexual conduct was sufficient for the jury to believe her story over that of the defendant holding a sleeping victim of sexual abuse was particularly susceptible to criminal conduct holding that evidence of prior uncharged sexual conduct with the victim is admissible to corroborate the victims testimony holding tenyearolds unequivocal testimony about her father touching her was sufficient to convict him for seconddegree criminal sexual conduct despite his claim that the story was fabricated holding that uncharged sexual acts committed upon the same victim are admissible to show the conduct of the defendant toward the victim and to corroborate the evidence of the offense charged in the indictment