17 Pennsylvania opinions name it 3 courts 1990–2025 2 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Pennsylvania courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Commonwealth v. Guygreen2 sentences2019Regarding consent, “evidence cannot be used to bolster a consent defense when the admitted purpose of the evidence is to prove that the victim acted in conformity with past behavior on the date in question.” Commonwealth v. Guy, 686 A.2d 397, 401 (Pa. Super. 1996). 2018K.S.F., 102 A.3d at 483-484 .12 Stated more concisely, evidence of a victim’s sexual history may be admissible if “the evidence is relevant to exculpate the accused, more probative than prejudicial, and non-cumulative in nature.” Commonwealth v. Guy, 686 A.2d 397, 401 (Pa. Super. 1996), appeal denied, 695 A.2d 784 (Pa. 1997).13 Here, in his Rape Shield Motion, Raubenstine’s proffered evidence of the victim’s subsequent sexual encounter with R.B. was a challenge to the victim’s ____________________________________________ 12 “Evidence is relevant if it has any tendency to make a fact more or le | 3 | 3 |
Commonwealth v. Blackgreen2 sentences2018When determining the admissibility of evidence that the Rape Shield Law may bar, trial courts hold an in camera hearing and conduct a balancing test consisting of the following factors: "(1) whether the proposed evidence is relevant to show bias or motive or to attack credibility; (2) whether the probative value of the evidence outweighs its prejudicial effect; and (3) whether there are alternative means of proving bias or motive or to challenge credibility." Id. 2018When determining the admissibility of evidence that the Rape Shield Law may bar, trial courts hold an in camera hearing and conduct a balancing test consisting of the following factors: “(1) whether the proposed evidence is relevant to show bias or motive or to attack credibility; (2) whether the probative value of the evidence outweighs its prejudicial effect; and (3) whether there are alternative means of proving bias or motive or to challenge credibility.” Id. | 1 | 10 |
Commonwealth v. K.S.F.green2 sentences2025Id. at 483-84 (cleaned up). 2016When determining the admissibility of evidence that the Rape Shield Law may bar, trial courts hold an in camera hearing and conduct a balancing test consisting of the following factors: “(1) whether the proposed evidence is relevant to show bias or motive or to attack credibility; - 23 - J-S33010-16 (2) whether the probative value of the evidence outweighs its prejudicial effect; and (3) whether there are alternative means of proving bias or motive or to challenge credibility.” Commonwealth v. K.S.F., 102 A.3d 480 , 483–84 (Pa. Super. 2014) (citations omitted). | 1 | 9 |
Commonwealth v. Wallgreen2 sentences1996See Commonwealth v. Wall, 413 Pa. Super. 599, 609-616 , 606 A.2d 449, 455-58 (1992). 1996See Commonwealth v. Wall, 413 Pa. Super. 599, 609-616 , 606 A.2d 449, 455-58 (1992). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Pennsylvania. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Commonwealth v. Riley
green
2 sentences2020When determining the admissibility of evidence that the Rape Shield Law may bar, trial courts hold an in camera hearing and conduct a balancing test consisting of the following factors: “(1) whether the proposed evidence is relevant to show bias or motive or to attack credibility; (2) whether the probative value of the evidence outweighs its prejudicial effect; and (3) whether there are alternative means of proving bias or motive or to challenge credibility.” Id. 2020When determining the admissibility of evidence that the Rape Shield Law may bar, trial courts hold an in camera hearing and conduct a balancing test consisting of the following factors: “(1) whether the proposed evidence is relevant to show bias or motive or to attack credibility; (2) whether the probative value of the evidence outweighs its prejudicial effect; and (3) whether there are alternative means of proving bias or motive or to challenge credibility.” Id. | 2 | 2020–2020 |
Com. v. Cramer, R., III
green
1 sentence2025When determining the admissibility of evidence that the Rape Shield Law may bar, trial courts hold an in camera hearing and conduct a balancing test consisting of the following factors: (1) whether the proposed evidence is relevant to show bias or motive or to attack credibility; (2) whether the probative value of the evidence outweighs its prejudicial effect; and (3) whether there are alternative means of proving bias or motive or to challenge credibility. -6- J-S25019-25 Id. (citations and quotation marks omitted). | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Commonwealth v. Majorana
green
2 sentences1990Majorana, supra, 470 A.2d at 84-85 ; Black, supra, 487 A.2d at 401 . 1990Majorana, supra, 470 A.2d at 84-85 ; Black, supra, 487 A.2d at 401 . | 1 | 1990–1990 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.