2012 Connecticut General Statutes
Title 54 - Criminal Procedure
Chapter 961 - Trial and Proceedings After Conviction
Section 54-86f - Admissibility of evidence of sexual conduct.

In any prosecution for sexual assault under sections 53a-70, 53a-70a, and 53a-71 to 53a-73a, inclusive, no evidence of the sexual conduct of the victim may be admissible unless such evidence is (1) offered by the defendant on the issue of whether the defendant was, with respect to the victim, the source of semen, disease, pregnancy or injury, or (2) offered by the defendant on the issue of credibility of the victim, provided the victim has testified on direct examination as to his or her sexual conduct, or (3) any evidence of sexual conduct with the defendant offered by the defendant on the issue of consent by the victim, when consent is raised as a defense by the defendant, or (4) otherwise so relevant and material to a critical issue in the case that excluding it would violate the defendant’s constitutional rights. Such evidence shall be admissible only after a hearing on a motion to offer such evidence containing an offer of proof. On motion of either party the court may order such hearing held in camera, subject to the provisions of section 51-164x. If the proceeding is a trial with a jury, such hearing shall be held in the absence of the jury. If, after hearing, the court finds that the evidence meets the requirements of this section and that the probative value of the evidence outweighs its prejudicial effect on the victim, the court may grant the motion. The testimony of the defendant during a hearing on a motion to offer evidence under this section may not be used against the defendant during the trial if such motion is denied, except that such testimony may be admissible to impeach the credibility of the defendant if the defendant elects to testify as part of the defense.

(P.A. 82-230; P.A. 83-113; P.A. 85-347.)

History: P.A. 83-113 added requirement that motion to offer evidence of prior sexual conduct contain an offer of proof and provision re admissibility of testimony of defendant to impeach credibility if defendant elects to testify; P.A. 85-347 deleted “prior” before “sexual conduct” and added “any” before “evidence”.

Cited. 3 CA 374; 8 CA 44; Id., 190; 11 CA 673; 14 CA 451; Id., 688. Rape victim’s shield law also cited. Id. Cited. 20 CA 263; 21 CA 411; 23 CA 221; 29 CA 409; Id., 642; 30 CA 56; 34 CA 473; 35 CA 173; 38 CA 100; 42 CA 445; 43 CA 667; Id., 680; Id., 715; 45 CA 116. Defendant’s rights under statute were impermissibly impaired when trial court excluded evidence of victim’s consensual sexual relations with the lead detective investigating her claim of sexual assault; such evidence was relevant to the substantive issue of consent raised by defendant and was offered for sole purpose of determining victim’s credibility and the inconsistency of her behavior following an alleged traumatic sexual assault. 57 CA 32. Court did not improperly exclude evidence of semen from third party on victim’s clothing. 68 CA 470. Legislative intent of rape shield statute discussed; legislature also provided for exceptions in rare instances; defendant entitled to proffer direct testimony re physical evidence tending to show misidentification; Subdiv. (1) does not specify that such evidence offered by defendant may be rebuttal evidence only. 85 CA 96. Court did not improperly exclude evidence concerning victim’s prior sexual conduct because court found that such evidence was not credible and therefore not relevant. 85 CA 575. Exclusion of evidence relating to victim’s alleged sexual interactions with his brothers did not violate defendant’s sixth amendment rights because such evidence was properly excluded as irrelevant. 99 CA 274. Trial court abused its discretion in refusing to grant evidentiary hearing to determine admissibility of evidence of plaintiff’s prior sexual conduct; evidence from police reports of two prior allegations, which presented facts that tended to demonstrate the falsity of plaintiff’s prior allegations, sufficient as offers of proof and relevant to the issue of whether defendant used force in committing the sexual assault. 106 CA 517; judgment reversed, see 295 C. 758. Defendant was properly prohibited from questioning victims about their sexual histories. 126 CA 437.

Subdiv. (1):

Court improperly excluded DNA evidence re semen from individual other than defendant under Subdiv. because evidence was offered by defendant to prove misidentification by victim, not to expose victim’s past sexual conduct. 280 C. 285.

Psychological injury is not recognized as an injury for purposes of Subdiv. 99 CA 274.

Subdiv. (2):

“Subdivision (2) of rape shield law” cited. 43 CA 715. Does not apply where the only sexual conduct to which victim testifies is alleged sexual conduct by defendant. 99 CA 274.

Subdiv. (4):

Cited. 23 CA 225. “Subdivision (4) of statute” cited. 43 CA 715. Evidence admitted under Subdiv. must be both material and relevant in order to be so critical that its exclusion could lead to a violation of defendant’s constitutional rights. 99 CA 274. Trial court improperly precluded evidence of minor victim’s sexual relationship with boyfriend because state conceded that defendant showed that victim may have had a motive to lie about defendant’s sexual assault. 121 CA 534.