California Codes

Cal. Evidence Code § 782 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section CA-LEGleginfo.legislature.ca.gov JustiaCode on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(a)In any of the circumstances described in subdivision (c), if evidence of sexual conduct of the complaining witness is offered to attack the credibility of the complaining witness under Section 780, the following procedure shall be followed:

(1)A written motion shall be made by the defendant to the court and prosecutor stating that the defense has an offer of proof of the relevance of evidence of the sexual conduct of the complaining witness that is proposed to be presented and of its relevance in attacking the credibility of the complaining witness.

(2)The written motion shall be accompanied by an affidavit in which the offer of proof shall be stated. The affidavit shall be filed under seal and only unsealed by the court to determine if the offer of proof is sufficient to order a hearing pursuant to paragraph (3). After that determination, the affidavit shall be resealed by the court.

(3)If the court finds that the offer of proof is sufficient, the court shall order a hearing out of the presence of the jury, if any, and at the hearing allow the questioning of the complaining witness regarding the offer of proof made by the defendant.

(4)At the conclusion of the hearing, if the court finds that evidence proposed to be offered by the defendant regarding the sexual conduct of the complaining witness is relevant pursuant to Section 780, and is not inadmissible pursuant to Section 352, the court may make an order stating what evidence may be introduced by the defendant, and the nature of the questions to be permitted. The defendant may then offer evidence pursuant to the order of the court.

(5)An affidavit resealed by the court pursuant to paragraph (2) shall remain sealed, unless the defendant raises an issue on appeal or collateral review relating to the offer of proof contained in the sealed document. If the defendant raises that issue on appeal, the court shall allow the Attorney General and appellate counsel for the defendant access to the sealed affidavit. If the issue is raised on collateral review, the court shall allow the district attorney and defendant’s counsel access to the sealed affidavit. The use of the information contained in the affidavit shall be limited solely to the pending proceeding.

(b)(1)As used in this section, “complaining witness” means:

(A)The alleged victim of the crime charged, the prosecution of which is subject to this section, pursuant to paragraph (1) of subdivision (c).

(B)An alleged victim offering testimony pursuant to paragraph (2) or (3) of subdivision (c).

(2)As used in this section, “evidence of sexual conduct” includes those portions of a social media account about the complaining witness, including any text, image, video, or picture, which depict sexual content, sexual history, nudity or partial nudity, intimate sexual activity, communications about sex, sexual fantasies, and other information that appeals to a prurient interest, unless it is related to the alleged offense.

(c)The procedure provided by subdivision (a) shall apply in any of the following circumstances:

(1)In a prosecution under Section 261, 262, 264.1, 286, 287, 288, 288.5, or 289 of, or former Section 288a of, the Penal Code, or for assault with intent to commit, attempt to commit, or conspiracy to commit any crime defined in any of those sections, except if the crime is alleged to have occurred in a local detention facility, as defined in Section 6031.4 of the Penal Code, or in the state prison, as defined in Section 4504.

(2)When an alleged victim testifies pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 1101 as a victim of a crime listed in Section 243.4, 261, 261.5, 269, 285, 286, 287, 288, 288.5, 289, 314, or 647.6 of, or former Section 288a of, the Penal Code, except if the crime is alleged to have occurred in a local detention facility, as defined in Section 6031.4 of the Penal Code, or in the state prison, as defined in Section 4504 of the Penal Code.

(3)When an alleged victim of a sexual offense testifies pursuant to Section 1108, except if the crime is alleged to have occurred in a local detention facility, as defined in Section 6031.4 of the Penal Code, or in the state prison, as defined in Section 4504 of the Penal Code.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 95 cases (33 in the last 5 years), 1976–2026 · leading case: The People v. Mestas, 217 Cal. App. 4th 1509 (Cal. Ct. App. 2013).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

The People v. Mestas, 217 Cal. App. 4th 1509 (Cal. Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 7× “He also contends that trial counsel was constitutionally deficient for failing to investigate the allegations of the victims’ sexual histories.”

People v. Winbush, 387 P.3d 1187 (Cal. 2017). “(Evid. Code, § 782.) 25 The same is true for defendant's assertion that it is "unseemly" to base a death sentence on juvenile misconduct he committed while under the state's supervision.”

People v. Bautista, 163 Cal. App. 4th 762 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 2× “) In prosecutions brought pursuant to section 288, Evidence Code section 782 provides for a strict procedure that includes a hearing outside of the presence of the jury prior to the admission of evidence of the complaining witness’s sexual conduct.”

People v. Woodward, 2004 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 2089 (Cal. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 2× “Analysis Evidence of prior sexual activity of a crime victim is generally excluded. (Evid. Code, § 1103, subd. (c)(1); see 1 Witkin, Cal.”

People v. Blackburn, 56 Cal. App. 3d 685 (Cal. Ct. App. 1976). · cites it 2× “Evidence Code section 782, adopted in 1974 as a companion to the amendment to section 1103, imposes a procedural limitation upon the admissibility,of evidence of sexual conduct of the alleged victim of rape or a related offense offered to attack her credibility.”

Mary M. v. City of Los Angeles, 814 P.2d 1341 (Cal. 1991). “Acknowledging the reality that rape victims were often victimized a second time by the criminal justice system, the Legislature enacted one of the nation’s first “rape shield” laws, limiting the admissibility of evidence of a complainant’s sexual history except under narrowly…”

People v. Espinoza, 2002 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 1196 (Cal. Ct. App. 2002). “Furthermore, there is nothing in the record to suggest that the trial court treated this statement as proffer of such testimony or that the court at any point made a ruling excluding Murillo’s testimony particularly in light of the trial court’s explicit statement, when it…”

People v. Chandler, 97 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 5780 (Cal. Ct. App. 1997). · cites it 2× “Because the victim’s credibility is almost always at issue in sexual assault cases, Evidence Code section 782 4 specifies a procedure requiring an in camera review of the proffered evidence to *708 diminish the potential abuse of section 1103, subdivision (c)(4).”

People v. Rioz, 161 Cal. App. 3d 905 (Cal. Ct. App. 1984). · cites it 2× “Notwithstanding the overlap between the issues of credibility and consent in such a case, Evidence Code section 782 applies only when the credibility of the complaining witness is attacked.”

Commonwealth v. Strube, 418 A.2d 365 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1979). · cites it 2× “ls upheld the California Rape Shield law against constitutional attack, albeit not based on the Wardius requirement of reciprocity: "Evidence Code section 782, adopted in 1974 as a companion to the amendment to section 1103, imposes a procedural limitation upon the admissibility…”

People v. Casas, 181 Cal. App. 3d 889 (Cal. Ct. App. 1986). · cites it 2× “) The Assembly Criminal Justice Committee reasoned the fear of personal questions deterred victims from filing complaints and resulted in a low percentage of reported rapes.”

People v. Harlan, 222 Cal. App. 3d 439 (Cal. Ct. App. 1990). “3 Evidence Code section 782 provides that in any prosecution for sexual offenses, before evidence of the victim’s sexual conduct may be introduced to attack the victim’s credibility, certain procedures must be followed, including the filing of a written motion supported by an…”

Show all 95 citing cases →

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.