13-1421. Evidence relating to victim's chastity; pretrial hearing
A. Evidence relating to a victim's reputation for chastity and opinion evidence relating to a victim's chastity are not admissible in any prosecution for any offense in this chapter, section 13-3212 or chapter 35.1 of this title. Evidence of specific instances of the victim's prior sexual conduct may be admitted only if a judge finds the evidence is relevant and is material to a fact in issue in the case and that the inflammatory or prejudicial nature of the evidence does not outweigh the probative value of the evidence, and if the evidence is one of the following:
1. Evidence of the victim's past sexual conduct with the defendant.
2. Evidence of specific instances of sexual activity showing the source or origin of semen, pregnancy, disease or trauma.
3. Evidence that supports a claim that the victim has a motive in accusing the defendant of the crime.
4. Evidence offered for the purpose of impeachment when the prosecutor puts the victim's prior sexual conduct in issue.
5. Evidence of false allegations of sexual misconduct made by the victim against others.
B. Evidence described in subsection A of this section shall not be referred to in any statements to a jury or introduced at trial without a court order after a hearing on written motions is held to determine the admissibility of the evidence. If new information is discovered during the course of the trial that may make the evidence described in subsection A of this section admissible, the court may hold a hearing to determine the admissibility of the evidence under subsection A of this section. The standard for admissibility of evidence under subsection A of this section is by clear and convincing evidence.
Notes of Decisions
State v. Gilfillan, 998 P.2d 1069 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2000).
· cites it 16× “”) section 13-1421, and otherwise affirm. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY ¶2 In June 1996, C.”
State of Arizona v. Raul Herrera III, 307 P.3d 103 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2013).
· cites it 11× “He argues this evidence was admissible under A.R.S. § 13-1421 (A), and that the state “opened the door” to such evidence.”
State of Arizona v. Johnathan Ian Burns, 344 P.3d 303 (Ariz. 2015).
· cites it 4× “” Burns argues this testimony violated Arizona’s Rape Shield Law, A.R.S. § 13-1421, by impermissibly commenting on Jackie’s chastity.”
State v. Dixon, 250 P.3d 1174 (Ariz. 2011).
· cites it 4× “The court denied the motion, citing the rape shield law, A.R.S. § 13-1421(A) (2010). 1142 At trial, after Dixon asked Deana’s mother about the diary, the prosecutor sought to exclude evidence from the diary on relevance and hearsay grounds.”
State v. Herrera, 243 P.3d 1041 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2010).
· cites it 11× “He argues this evidence was admissible under A.R.S. § 13-1421 (A), and that the state “opened the door” to such evidence.”
Phoenix Newspapers, Inc. v. Ellis, 159 P.3d 578 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2007).
· cites it 3× “Doe also cites Arizona’s rape shield law, A.R.S. § 13-1421 (2001), as protecting the facts and circumstances of sexual assault victims.”
State ex rel. Montgomery v. Duncan, 269 P.3d 690 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2011).
· cites it 4× “”) section 13-1421 (2010). The trial court stated: [This is] why I’m allowing its admission.”
State v. MacHado, 230 P.3d 1158 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2010).
· cites it 2× “, A.R.S. § 13-1421 (relating to evidence of victim's prior sexual conduct); Ariz.”
Valerie M. v. Arizona Dep't of Econ. Sec., 195 P.3d 192 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2008).
· cites it 2× “§ 13-1421 violates the doctrine of separation of powers by establishing “clear and convincing” evidence as the quantum of proof necessary for the admission of specific acts of the victim under Arizona’s Rape Shield Law: “[T]he burden of proof is substantive, not procedural.”).…”
State of Arizona v. Miguel Francisco Inzunza, 316 P.3d 1266 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2014).
· cites it 2× “, and Arizona’s rape shield statute, AR.S. § 13-1421. Inzunza opposed the motion, arguing the victim’s reactions to the prior sexual assault differed significantly from her reactions in the present case and thus served as a contrasting example of “non-consent.”
State Ex Rel. Thomas v. Rayes, 141 P.3d 806 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2006).
· cites it 4× “2000) (finding that A.R.S. § 13-1421, Arizona's Rape Shield Law, "neither impermissibly infringes upon the Arizona Supreme Court's rulemaking authority nor violates the doctrine of the separation of powers"); see also State ex rel.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-1421(A) — 25 cases
State v. Dixon, 250 P.3d 1174 (Ariz. 2011).
“The court denied the motion, citing the rape shield law, A.R.S. § 13-1421(A) (2010). 1142 At trial, after Dixon asked Deana’s mother about the diary, the prosecutor sought to exclude evidence from the diary on relevance and hearsay grounds.”
State v. Gilfillan, 998 P.2d 1069 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2000).
“”) section 13-1421, and otherwise affirm. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY ¶2 In June 1996, C.”
State of Arizona v. Raul Herrera III, 307 P.3d 103 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2013).
“He argues this evidence was admissible under A.R.S. § 13-1421 (A), and that the state “opened the door” to such evidence.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-1421(A)(1) — 1 case
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-1421(A)(2) — 5 cases
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-1421(A)(3) — 9 cases
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-1421(A)(4) — 2 cases
State of Arizona v. Raul Herrera III, 307 P.3d 103 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2013).
“He argues this evidence was admissible under A.R.S. § 13-1421 (A), and that the state “opened the door” to such evidence.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-1421(A)(5) — 7 cases
State v. Gilfillan, 998 P.2d 1069 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2000).
“”) section 13-1421, and otherwise affirm. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY ¶2 In June 1996, C.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-1421(B) — 10 cases
State v. Gilfillan, 998 P.2d 1069 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2000).
“”) section 13-1421, and otherwise affirm. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY ¶2 In June 1996, C.”
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.