(a) As used in this section, unless the context clearly indicates otherwise, the following words and phrases shall have the following respective meanings:
(1) COMPLAINING WITNESS. Any person alleged to be the victim of the crime charged, the prosecution of which is subject to the provisions of this section.
(2) CRIMINAL SEXUAL CONDUCT. Sexual activity, including, but not limited to, rape, sodomy, sexual misconduct, sexual abuse or carnal knowledge.
(3) EVIDENCE RELATING TO PAST SEXUAL BEHAVIOR. Such term includes, but is not limited to, evidence of the complaining witness’s marital history, mode of dress and general reputation for promiscuity, nonchastity or sexual mores contrary to the community standards.
(b) In any prosecution for criminal sexual conduct or for assault with intent to commit, attempt to commit or conspiracy to commit criminal sexual conduct, evidence relating to the past sexual behavior of the complaining witness, as defined in subsection (a) of this section, shall not be admissible, either as direct evidence or on cross-examination of the complaining witness or of other witnesses, except as otherwise provided in this section.
(c) In any prosecution for criminal sexual conduct, evidence relating to the past sexual behavior of the complaining witness shall be introduced if the court, following the procedure described in subsection (d) of this section, finds that such past sexual behavior directly involved the participation of the accused.
(d) The procedure for introducing evidence, as described in subsection (c) of this section, shall be as follows:
(1) At the time the defense shall seek to introduce evidence which would be covered by subsection (c) of this section, the defense shall notify the court of such intent, whereupon the court shall conduct an in camera hearing to examine into the defendant’s offer of proof. All in camera proceedings shall be included in their entirety in the transcript and record of the trial and case;
(2) At the conclusion of the hearing, if the court finds that any of the evidence introduced at the hearing is admissible under subsection (b) of this section, the court shall by order state what evidence may be introduced by the defense at the trial of the case and in what manner the evidence may be introduced; and
(3) The defense may then introduce evidence pursuant to the order of the court.
(Acts 1977, No. 251, p. 328.)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
10
cases, 1978–2017 · leading case:
Turley v. State, 356 So. 2d 1238 (Ala. Crim. App. 1978).
Turley v. State, 356 So. 2d 1238 (Ala. Crim. App. 1978).
· cites it 4× “§ 12-21-203, Code of Alabama 1975. Appellant contends that this section has no retrospective effect and has no application to the instant offense, which is alleged to have been committed on July 10, 1973.”
Hurt v. Shelby Cnty. Bd. of Educ., 198 F. Supp. 3d 1293 (N.D. Ala. 2016).
· cites it 2× “See Ala. Code § 12-21-203 . Moreover, the rules of evidence are usually inapplicable in administrative proceedings.”
Mitchell v. State, 593 So. 2d 176 (Ala. Crim. App. 1991).
· cites it 4× “I Mitchell contends that the Alabama rape shield statute, § 12-21-203, Code of Alabama 1975, is unconstitutional because it constitutes a denial of due process and denial of confrontation of witnesses in that it prevents the accused from producing testimony regarding the…”
Wilson v. State, 551 So. 2d 447 (Ala. Crim. App. 1989).
· cites it 2× “” Under the rape shield statute, § 12-21-203, evidence of past sexual behavior of the victim directly involving the participation of the defendant may be considered by the jury as bearing on the issue of consent.”
James Floyd Smelcher v. Attorney Gen. of Alabama John E. Nagle, 947 F.2d 1472 (11th Cir. 1991).
“Smelcher argues that his trial counsel was ineffective because even though his trial counsel knew of past sexual relations between Smelcher and the victim and planned to use this to support a defense of consent, he failed to make an objection to the motion in limine or an offer…”
O.A.C. v. State, 851 So. 2d 146 (Ala. Crim. App. 2002).
“Before trial, the State made an oral motion in limine, pursuant to Alabama’s “rape-shield” law, formerly § 12-21-203, Ala.Code 1975, now Rule 412, Ala.”
Nelson v. State, 534 So. 2d 1118 (Ala. Crim. App. 1988).
· cites it 3× “The trial judge granted the motion in limine under the authority of § 12-21-203, Code of Alabama 1975. The pertinent part of § 12-21-203, Code of Alabama 1975 is as follows: “(b) In any prosecution for criminal sexual conduct or for assault with intent to commit, attempt to…”
Israel v. State, 141 So. 3d 95 (Ala. Crim. App. 2013).
“Israel first contends that the circuit court abused its discretion when it granted the State’s motion in limine to exclude evidence under the rape-shield statute, § 12-21-203, Ala.Code 1975, which is now encompassed in Rule 412, Ala.”
Portillo v. State, 211 So. 3d 1135 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017).
· cites it 2× “Wallach, Rape Shield Laws: Protecting the Victim at the 3 Ala. Code § 12-21-203 ; Alaska Stat. § 12.”
State v. Myers, 675 So. 2d 549 (Ala. Crim. App. 1996).
“The trial court held a hearing on the motion, reviewed the requested documents in camera, and held that the documents were protected by § 26-14-8 and by the rape shield statute, § 12-21-203. The petitioner then filed this petition for a writ of mandamus asking this court to…”
— Ala. Code § 12-21-203(c) — 1 case
Wilson v. State, 551 So. 2d 447 (Ala. Crim. App. 1989).
“” Under the rape shield statute, § 12-21-203, evidence of past sexual behavior of the victim directly involving the participation of the defendant may be considered by the jury as bearing on the issue of consent.”
— Ala. Code § 12-21-203(d) — 1 case
James Floyd Smelcher v. Attorney Gen. of Alabama John E. Nagle, 947 F.2d 1472 (11th Cir. 1991).
“Smelcher argues that his trial counsel was ineffective because even though his trial counsel knew of past sexual relations between Smelcher and the victim and planned to use this to support a defense of consent, he failed to make an objection to the motion in limine or an offer…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.