Alaska Stat. § 12.45.045
Evidence of past sexual conduct in trials of certain sexual offenses
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
AK-LEGakleg.gov
JustiaTitle on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
Sec. 12.45.045. Evidence of past sexual conduct in trials of certain sexual offenses.
(a) In prosecutions for the crimes of sexual assault in any degree, sexual abuse of a minor in any degree, unlawful exploitation of a minor, or an attempt to commit any of these crimes, evidence of the sexual conduct of the complaining witness, occurring either before or after the offense charged, may not be admitted nor may reference be made to it in the presence of the jury except as provided in this section. When the defendant seeks to admit the evidence for any purpose, the defendant shall apply for an order of the court not later than five days before trial or at a later time as the court may, for good cause, permit. The defendant may, for good cause shown, apply for an order during trial if the request is based on information learned after the deadline or during the trial. After the application is made, the court shall conduct a hearing in camera to determine the admissibility of the evidence. If the court finds that evidence offered by the defendant regarding the sexual conduct of the complaining witness is relevant, and that the probative value of the evidence offered is not outweighed by the probability that its admission will create undue prejudice, confusion of the issues, or unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the complaining witness, the court shall make an order stating what evidence may be introduced and the nature of the questions that may be permitted. The defendant may then offer evidence under the order of the court.
(b) In the absence of a persuasive showing to the contrary, evidence of the complaining witness' sexual conduct occurring more than one year before the date of the offense charged is presumed to be inadmissible under this section.
(c) In this section “complaining witness” means the alleged victim of the crime charged, the prosecution of which is subject to this section.
(a) In prosecutions for the crimes of sexual assault in any degree, sexual abuse of a minor in any degree, unlawful exploitation of a minor, or an attempt to commit any of these crimes, evidence of the sexual conduct of the complaining witness, occurring either before or after the offense charged, may not be admitted nor may reference be made to it in the presence of the jury except as provided in this section. When the defendant seeks to admit the evidence for any purpose, the defendant shall apply for an order of the court not later than five days before trial or at a later time as the court may, for good cause, permit. The defendant may, for good cause shown, apply for an order during trial if the request is based on information learned after the deadline or during the trial. After the application is made, the court shall conduct a hearing in camera to determine the admissibility of the evidence. If the court finds that evidence offered by the defendant regarding the sexual conduct of the complaining witness is relevant, and that the probative value of the evidence offered is not outweighed by the probability that its admission will create undue prejudice, confusion of the issues, or unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the complaining witness, the court shall make an order stating what evidence may be introduced and the nature of the questions that may be permitted. The defendant may then offer evidence under the order of the court.
(b) In the absence of a persuasive showing to the contrary, evidence of the complaining witness' sexual conduct occurring more than one year before the date of the offense charged is presumed to be inadmissible under this section.
(c) In this section “complaining witness” means the alleged victim of the crime charged, the prosecution of which is subject to this section.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 27
cases, 1979–2019 · leading case: Kvasnikoff v. State
Kvasnikoff v. State (1983)
“Kvasnikoff asserts that evidence was excluded as a result of an erroneous application of AS 12.45.045. Kvasnikoff also asserts that the exclusion deprived him of his right to confront the complaining witness through effective cross-examination.”
Worthy v. State (2000)
“'s previous sexual conduct, AS 12.45.045(a) and Alaska Evidence Rule 404(a)(2) may affect the admissibility of Dr.”
Jager v. State (1988)
“’s prior sexual experience was inadmissible under AS 12.45.045, Alaska’s rape shield statute.”
Padgett v. State (1979)
“” AS 12.45.045 governs the admission of evidence concerning past sexual conduct in rape trials.”
Baden v. State (1983)
“The prosecutor argued that the rape shield statute, AS 12.45.045, 3 banned any reference to a victim’s prior sexual conduct and that other evidence concerning C.”
Collins v. State (2009)
“, Alaska Stat. § 12.45.045 (a) (2006); Ark.”
Kenneth W. Wood v. State of Alaska (1992)
“Alaska Stat. § 12.45.045 (a) requires the *1547 court to determine, in an in camera hearing, the admissibility of evidence of previous sexual conduct: If the court finds that evidence offered by the defendant regarding the sexual conduct of the complaining witness is relevant,…”
Covington v. State (1985)
“, AS 12.45.045; A.R.E. 404(a)(2). See Commonwealth v.”
Williamson v. State (1984)
“[9] AS 12.45.045 provides, in part: (a) In prosecutions for the crime of sexual assault .”
Patterson v. State (1984)
“’s past sexual conduct, the trial court never really made a determination as to any specific evidence since Patterson never made a proper offer of proof as required by AS 12.45.045. See also A.R.E. 103(2) (no error where court excludes evidence if no offer of proof).”
Moss v. State (1980)
“In light of AS 12.45.045 5 the trial court was understandably skeptical about allowing this theory to be the basis for testimony as to prior sexual conduct of the victim.”
Heath v. State (1993)
“The State opposed Heath’s request, arguing that Heath was asking the court to disregard Alaska’s rape shield statute, AS 12.45.045(a). 1 Superior Court Judge John Reese denied Heath’s request.”
— Alaska Stat. § 12.45.045(a) — 7 cases
Worthy v. State (2000)
“'s previous sexual conduct, AS 12.45.045(a) and Alaska Evidence Rule 404(a)(2) may affect the admissibility of Dr.”
Heath v. State (1993)
“The State opposed Heath’s request, arguing that Heath was asking the court to disregard Alaska’s rape shield statute, AS 12.45.045(a). 1 Superior Court Judge John Reese denied Heath’s request.”
Patterson v. State (1984)
“’s past sexual conduct, the trial court never really made a determination as to any specific evidence since Patterson never made a proper offer of proof as required by AS 12.45.045. See also A.R.E. 103(2) (no error where court excludes evidence if no offer of proof).”
Jager v. State (1988)
“’s prior sexual experience was inadmissible under AS 12.45.045, Alaska’s rape shield statute.”
Baden v. State (1983)
“The prosecutor argued that the rape shield statute, AS 12.45.045, 3 banned any reference to a victim’s prior sexual conduct and that other evidence concerning C.”
— Alaska Stat. § 12.45.045(b) — 2 cases
Napoka v. State (2000)
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.