Conn. Gen. Stat. § 54-86f

Current with legislation from the 2023 Regular and Special Sessions.

Section 54-86f - Admissibility of evidence of sexual conduct

(a) 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 an in camera hearing on a motion to offer such evidence containing an offer of proof. If the proceeding is a trial with a jury, such hearing shall be held in the absence of the jury. If, after a 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.

(b) Any motion and supporting document filed pursuant to this section shall be filed under seal and may be unsealed only if the court rules the evidence is admissible and the case proceeds to trial. If the court determines that only part of the evidence contained in the motion is admissible, only that portion of the motion and any supporting document pertaining to the admissible portion may be unsealed. The court shall maintain any document remaining under seal for delivery to the Appellate Court in the event of an appeal.

(c) The court shall seal each court transcript, recording and record of a proceeding of a hearing held pursuant to this section. The court may unseal a transcript, recording or record only if the court rules the evidence in such transcript, recording or record is admissible and the case proceeds to trial. If the court determines that only part of such evidence is admissible, only the portion of such transcript, record or recording pertaining to the admissible evidence may be unsealed.

(d) Evidence described in subsection (a) of this section shall be subject to such other terms and conditions as the court may provide. No defendant, defense counsel or agent of the defendant or defense counsel shall further disclose such evidence disclosed by the state, except to persons employed by defense counsel in connection with the investigation or defense of the case or any successor counsel, without the prior approval of the prosecuting authority or the court.

Conn. Gen. Stat. § 54-86f

(P.A. 82-230; P.A. 83-113; P.A. 85-347; P.A. 15-207, S. 2.)

Amended by P.A. 15-0207, S. 2 of the Connecticut Acts of the 2015 Regular Session, eff. 10/1/2015.

Cited. 195 C. 253; 197 C. 280; 199 C. 193; Id., 481; 207 C. 403; 208 C. 365; 209 Conn. 143; 220 C. 345; 228 C. 456; 230 Conn. 43. Defendant failed to make an adequate preliminary showing of relevancy in order to justify cross examination of plaintiff's father about plaintiff's statement concerning a prior sexual assault investigation. 244 C. 640. Court sets forth standard applicable to child sexual abuse cases re determining whether prior sexual conduct should be admissible at trial for purposes of showing an alternative source for victim's sexual knowledge; standard also applicable for determining admissibility of evidence of prior sexual conduct for purposes of rebutting evidence offered by expert witness to show that a child exhibits behavior indicative of sexual abuse, by showing an alternative explanation for that behavior. 257 C. 156. Evidence of victim's prior history of prostitution admissible to establish consent to sexual relations or motive to provide false testimony but not to establish general unchaste character. 270 C. 826; overruled with respect to conclusion that "material" refers to the constitutional standard for materiality, see 320 C. 781. Court improperly excluded testimony proffered by defendant re victim's prior statements about past sexual conduct after victim testified to having no prior sexual experience at time of assault. 280 C. 36. Trial court properly exercised discretion by precluding inquiry into victim's prior sexual assaults, as they were not relevant to any critical issue in present case, and defendant never offered any specific evidence of falsity. 295 C. 758. Evidence of victim's prior sexual acts with a person other than defendant was not relevant to demonstrate alleged bias, motive or interest of victim and was properly excluded. 303 C. 589. Cited. 3 CA 374; 8 CA 44; Id., 190; 11 CA 673; 14 CA 451; Id., 688; 20 CA 263; 21 CA 411; 23 CA 221; Id., 225; 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 Conn.App. 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 Conn. 758. Defendant was properly prohibited from questioning victims about their sexual histories. 126 CA 437. Section abrogates common law rule that character of woman as to chastity is of considerable probative value in judging likelihood of consent. 177 CA 369. Subsec. (a): Court improperly excluded DNA evidence re semen from individual other than defendant under Subdiv. (1) because evidence was offered by defendant to prove misidentification by victim, not to expose victim's past sexual conduct. 280 C. 285. Subdiv. (4): "Material" as used in section does not refer to the constitutional standard, but rather the evidentiary standard, that is, evidence is material when it has an influence, effect, or bearing on a fact in dispute at trial. 320 Conn. 781. Psychological injury is not recognized as an injury for purposes of Subdiv. (1); Subdiv. (2) does not apply where the only sexual conduct to which victim testifies is alleged sexual conduct by defendant; evidence admitted under Subdiv. (4) 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 Conn.App. 274. Subdiv. (4): 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.