794.022
Rules of evidence.
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
FL-LEGleg.state.fl.us
JustiaFla. Statutes
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
794.022 Rules of evidence.—
(1) The testimony of the victim need not be corroborated in a prosecution under s. 787.06, s. 794.011, or s. 800.04.
(2) Specific instances of prior consensual sexual activity between the victim and any person other than the offender may not be admitted into evidence in a prosecution under s. 787.06, s. 794.011, or s. 800.04. However, such evidence may be admitted if it is first established to the court in a proceeding in camera that such evidence may prove that the defendant was not the source of the semen, pregnancy, injury, or disease; or, when consent by the victim is at issue, such evidence may be admitted if it is first established to the court in a proceeding in camera that such evidence tends to establish a pattern of conduct or behavior on the part of the victim which is so similar to the conduct or behavior in the case that it is relevant to the issue of consent.
(3) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, reputation evidence relating to a victim’s prior sexual conduct or evidence presented for the purpose of showing that manner of dress of the victim at the time of the offense incited the sexual battery may not be admitted into evidence in a prosecution under s. 787.06, s. 794.011, or s. 800.04.
(4) When consent of the victim is a defense to prosecution under s. 787.06, s. 794.011, or s. 800.04, evidence of the victim’s mental incapacity or defect is admissible to prove that the consent was not intelligent, knowing, or voluntary; and the court shall instruct the jury accordingly.
(5) An offender’s use of a prophylactic device, or a victim’s request that an offender use a prophylactic device, is not, by itself, relevant to either the issue of whether or not the offense was committed or the issue of whether or not the victim consented.
History.—s. 2, ch. 74-121; s. 237, ch. 77-104; s. 1, ch. 83-258; s. 1, ch. 90-40; s. 5, ch. 90-174; s. 25, ch. 93-156; s. 1, ch. 94-80; s. 5, ch. 2016-199.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 97
cases (17 in the last 5 years), 1977–2025 · leading case: Brown v. State
Brown v. State (2009)
“Section 794.022 in the 1974 supplement contains an erroneous reference to section 794.”
Rafael Alexander Gutierrez v. State of Florida (2015)
“Section 794.022, titled “Rules of evidence,” addresses the admission and exclusion of certain evidentiary matters in prosecutions for sexual battery.”
Roberts v. State (1987)
“Roberts contends that testimony concerning the alleged prostitution does not fall within the parameters of Florida's Rape Shield Law, section 794.022, Florida Statutes, which provides in pertinent part: (2) Specific instances of prior consensual sexual activity between the…”
Marr v. State (1985)
“01, Florida Statutes (rape and forcible carnal knowledge), by Chapter 74-121, Section 1, Laws of Florida (2) the amendment of Section 794.022, Florida Statutes, by Chapter 83-258, Section 1, Laws of Florida, deleting certain language permitting the court to instruct the jury…”
Lewis v. State (1991)
“[5] Our decision does not directly address section 794.022 and should not be read to cast doubt on the validity of that statute.”
Marr v. State (1986)
“Whatever marginal utility or attenuated relevance the proffered questions may have had is clearly overshadowed in this case by the policy enunciated in section 794.022. We understand the concern expressed by the panel decision below, 470 So.”
Carlyle v. State (2006)
“" § 794.022(2), Fla. Stat. (2004). We conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in excluding this evidence.”
Kaplan v. State (1984)
“Section 794.022(2), Florida Statutes (1983), provides in pertinent part: Specific instances of prior consensual sexual activity between the victim and any person other than the offender shall not be admitted into evidence in a prosecution under s.”
McElveen v. State (1982)
“Section 794.022 does, however, bar evidence of specific sexual acts unless that evidence establishes a pattern of conduct relevant to the issue of consent.”
Tibbs v. State (1981)
“§ 794.022(1), Fla. Stat. (1979). A majority of states has rejected the corroboration requirement which had no basis in common law, though the district court in Smith assumed otherwise.”
In Re STANDARD JURY INSTRUCTIONS IN CRIMINAL CASES-INSTRUCTIONS 7.8, 7.8(A), and 11.1-11.6(A) (2016)
“§ 794.022, Fla. Stat. (Victim’s) lack of chastity is not a defense to the crime charged.”
Larry Michael Thorne v. State of Florida (2019)
“§ 794.022(2-3), Fla. Stat. (2018) (emphasis added).”
— 794.022(1) — 13 cases
Brown v. State (2009)
“Section 794.022 in the 1974 supplement contains an erroneous reference to section 794.”
Rafael Alexander Gutierrez v. State of Florida (2015)
“Section 794.022, titled “Rules of evidence,” addresses the admission and exclusion of certain evidentiary matters in prosecutions for sexual battery.”
Tibbs v. State (1981)
“§ 794.022(1), Fla. Stat. (1979). A majority of states has rejected the corroboration requirement which had no basis in common law, though the district court in Smith assumed otherwise.”
Rankin v. Evans (1998)
Marr v. State (1985)
“01, Florida Statutes (rape and forcible carnal knowledge), by Chapter 74-121, Section 1, Laws of Florida (2) the amendment of Section 794.022, Florida Statutes, by Chapter 83-258, Section 1, Laws of Florida, deleting certain language permitting the court to instruct the jury…”
— 794.022(2) — 48 cases
Lewis v. State (1991)
“[5] Our decision does not directly address section 794.022 and should not be read to cast doubt on the validity of that statute.”
Kaplan v. State (1984)
“Section 794.022(2), Florida Statutes (1983), provides in pertinent part: Specific instances of prior consensual sexual activity between the victim and any person other than the offender shall not be admitted into evidence in a prosecution under s.”
Carlyle v. State (2006)
“" § 794.022(2), Fla. Stat. (2004). We conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in excluding this evidence.”
Marr v. State (1986)
“Whatever marginal utility or attenuated relevance the proffered questions may have had is clearly overshadowed in this case by the policy enunciated in section 794.022. We understand the concern expressed by the panel decision below, 470 So.”
McElveen v. State (1982)
“Section 794.022 does, however, bar evidence of specific sexual acts unless that evidence establishes a pattern of conduct relevant to the issue of consent.”
— 794.022(3) — 8 cases
Rafael Alexander Gutierrez v. State of Florida (2015)
“Section 794.022, titled “Rules of evidence,” addresses the admission and exclusion of certain evidentiary matters in prosecutions for sexual battery.”
Roberts v. State (1987)
“Roberts contends that testimony concerning the alleged prostitution does not fall within the parameters of Florida's Rape Shield Law, section 794.022, Florida Statutes, which provides in pertinent part: (2) Specific instances of prior consensual sexual activity between the…”
Anderson v. State (1989)
Arroyo v. State (2018)
Carlyle v. State (2006)
“" § 794.022(2), Fla. Stat. (2004). We conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in excluding this evidence.”
— 794.022(4) — 3 cases
In Re STANDARD JURY INSTRUCTIONS IN CRIMINAL CASES-INSTRUCTIONS 7.8, 7.8(A), and 11.1-11.6(A) (2016)
“§ 794.022, Fla. Stat. (Victim’s) lack of chastity is not a defense to the crime charged.”
Strong v. State (2003)
— 794.022(5) — 2 cases
Rafael Alexander Gutierrez v. State of Florida (2015)
“Section 794.022, titled “Rules of evidence,” addresses the admission and exclusion of certain evidentiary matters in prosecutions for sexual battery.”
Strong v. State (2003)
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.