(a) In any prosecution for the crime of any degree of rape, unlawful sexual intercourse, unlawful sexual penetration or unlawful sexual contact; an attempt to commit any degree of rape, unlawful sexual intercourse, unlawful sexual penetration or unlawful sexual contact, if such attempt conforms to § 531 of this title; solicitation for the crime of any degree of rape, unlawful sexual intercourse, unlawful sexual penetration or unlawful sexual contact, if such offense conforms to § 502 of this title; or conspiracy to commit any degree of rape, unlawful sexual intercourse, unlawful sexual penetration or unlawful sexual contact, if such offense conforms to § 512 of this title, if evidence of the sexual conduct of the complaining witness is offered to attack the credibility of the complaining witness the following procedure shall be followed:
(1) The defendant shall make a written motion to the court and prosecutor stating that the defense has an offer of proof concerning the relevancy of evidence of the sexual conduct of the complaining witness which the defendant proposes to present, and the relevancy of such evidence 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.
(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 such 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, and is not inadmissible, the court may issue 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.
(b) As used in this section, “complaining witness” shall mean the alleged victim of any degree of rape, unlawful sexual intercourse, unlawful sexual penetration or unlawful sexual contact, any degree of attempted rape, attempted unlawful sexual intercourse, attempted unlawful sexual penetration or attempted unlawful sexual contact, conspiracy or assault.
60 Del. Laws, c. 257,
§
1;
66 Del. Laws, c. 269,
§§
3-5;
70 Del. Laws, c. 186,
§
1;
71 Del. Laws, c. 285,
§
2;
Notes of Decisions
United States Ex Rel. Tatman v. Anderson, 391 F. Supp. 68 (D. Del. 1975).
· cites it 4× “§ 3508, which allows only the state to move for a grant of immunity to compel testimony from witnesses, denies the petitioner equal protection of the law; and second, that the failure of the state to secure or attempt to secure testimony from a witness who was invoking her Fifth…”
Petition of State, 708 A.2d 983 (Del. 1998).
· cites it 2× “4 She also took the position that 11 Del. C. § 3508, the Rape Shield Statute, prevented discovery of the victim’s treatment records that predated the alleged incident of sexual misconduct or, alternatively, the information was not relevant.”
Tatman v. State, 314 A.2d 417 (Del. 1973).
· cites it 2× “The defendant also contends that the Trial Court erred in denying the defendant’s motion to grant immunity under 11 Del.C. § 3508 to a witness, Patricia Browning, who claimed that she could exonerate the defendant.”
Jenkins v. State, 305 A.2d 610 (Del. 1973).
“We find none of these cases persuasive for the following reasons: There is nothing in the Delaware Immunity Statute (11 Del.C. § 3508) which restricts the grant of immunity to a co-defendant or a co-conspirator.”
Preston v. State, 306 A.2d 712 (Del. 1973).
· cites it 2× “The quick answer to this contention is that the Delaware Immunity Statute (11 Del.C. § 3508) provides for immunity from prosecution as well as punishment.”
Stevens v. Delaware Corr. Ctr., 152 F. Supp. 2d 561 (D. Del. 2001).
“See 11 Del. C. §§ 3508, 3509. The court does not understand the Respondents to contend that the rape shield law would preclude the admission of allegations that Auterson was kissing and dancing with Stevens at Mr.”
State v. Mufich, 532 P.2d 1301 (Kan. 1975).
“The Supreme Court of Delaware in construing a similar provision in the Delaware witness immunity statute (11 Del. C. § 3508) arrived at a similar interpretation of their “unless clause” holding that because such testimony cannot be used in evidence in a subsequent federal…”
Shockley v. State, 269 A.2d 778 (Del. 1970).
“Shockley argues that it was error to fail to have him present and to permit his counsel to be heard at the immunity hearing with respect to Jerome Hamilton under 11 Del.C. § 3508. That section per *781 mits “in any criminal action or in any investigation carried on by the Grand…”
State v. Conner, 295 A.2d 704 (Del. 1972).
· cites it 2× “§ 9903, 1 calling for review of an interpretation by the Superior Court of our Witness Immunity *706 Statute, 11 Del.C. § 3508. 2 Leave was granted because an important question is presented for decision for future reference.”
Massey v. State (Del. 2025).
· cites it 8× “3 11 Del. C. § 3508; A18–34 (Mot. In Camera Interview under § 3508, Jan.”
Clark v. State (Del. 2026).
· cites it 8× “”21 In his second motion in limine, Clark asked the trial court to conduct a hearing in camera under 11 Del. C. § 3508 to consider the admissibility of certain Instagram messages between S.”
— 11 Del. C. § 3508(a) — 4 cases
Preston v. State, 306 A.2d 712 (Del. 1973).
“The quick answer to this contention is that the Delaware Immunity Statute (11 Del.C. § 3508) provides for immunity from prosecution as well as punishment.”
Clark v. State (Del. 2026).
“”21 In his second motion in limine, Clark asked the trial court to conduct a hearing in camera under 11 Del. C. § 3508 to consider the admissibility of certain Instagram messages between S.”
Massey v. State (Del. 2025).
“3 11 Del. C. § 3508; A18–34 (Mot. In Camera Interview under § 3508, Jan.”
— 11 Del. C. § 3508(a)(1) — 2 cases
Massey v. State (Del. 2025).
“3 11 Del. C. § 3508; A18–34 (Mot. In Camera Interview under § 3508, Jan.”
— 11 Del. C. § 3508(a)(3) — 1 case
Massey v. State (Del. 2025).
“3 11 Del. C. § 3508; A18–34 (Mot. In Camera Interview under § 3508, Jan.”
— 11 Del. C. § 3508(a)(4) — 2 cases
Massey v. State (Del. 2025).
“3 11 Del. C. § 3508; A18–34 (Mot. In Camera Interview under § 3508, Jan.”
Clark v. State (Del. 2026).
“”21 In his second motion in limine, Clark asked the trial court to conduct a hearing in camera under 11 Del. C. § 3508 to consider the admissibility of certain Instagram messages between S.”
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.