Idaho Code
Idaho Code

Idaho Code § 18-6105 (2026)

Evidence of previous sexual conduct of prosecuting witness. 

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section IClegislature.idaho.gov Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Evidence of previous sexual conduct of prosecuting witness. 

In prosecutions for the crime of rape, evidence of the prosecuting witness’ previous sexual conduct shall not be admitted nor reference made thereto in the presence of the jury, except as provided hereinafter. The defendant may make application to the court before or during the trial for the admission of evidence concerning the previous sexual conduct of the prosecuting witness. Upon such application the court shall conduct a hearing out of the presence of the jury as to the relevancy of such evidence of previous sexual conduct and shall limit the questioning and control the admission and exclusion of evidence upon trial. Nothing in this section shall limit the right of either the state or the accused to impeach credibility by the showing of prior felony convictions.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 13 cases, 1970–2012 · leading case: State v. Parker, 730 P.2d 921 (Idaho 1986).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Parker, 730 P.2d 921 (Idaho 1986). · cites it 44× “At trial the court struck Bauder's testimony as to the victim's admission of her pregnancy on grounds that I.C. § 18-6105 (1984), the rape-shield law, made inadmissible any references to the victim's prior sexual conduct.”
State v. Gabrielson, 708 P.2d 912 (Idaho Ct. App. 1985). · cites it 36× “The state asserts that Idaho Code § 18-6105 was enacted to prevent the harassment of victims of sex crimes by exploratory questioning about their prior sexual conduct.”
State v. Winkler, 736 P.2d 1371 (Idaho Ct. App. 1987). · cites it 10× “Upon reviewing the record, we are convinced that this question was worded in such a way as to impugn the character of the witness.”
State v. Palin, 675 P.2d 49 (Idaho Ct. App. 1983). · cites it 4× “The court invoked I.C. § 18-6105, the “rape shield” statute, 2 which provides that “[i]n prosecutions for the crime of rape, evidence of the prosecuting witness’ previous sexual conduct shall not be admitted .”
Estes v. State, 725 P.2d 135 (Idaho 1986). · cites it 4× “Such evidence is generally inadmissible under I.C. § 18-6105. It must be remembered that Estes was the defendant at trial, not Julie Somerton.”
State v. Molen, 231 P.3d 1047 (Idaho Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 2× “[1] Idaho's rape shield statute is found at Idaho Code § 18-6105 . Idaho Rule of Evidence 412 extends the protections and procedures of the rape shield law to other sex crimes in addition to rape.”
State v. Huggins, 648 P.2d 1135 (Idaho Ct. App. 1982). · cites it 4× “Two companion statutes were adopted at *1142 the same time: Idaho Code § 18-6105 limits a defendant's ability to introduce evidence of the prosecutrix's prior sexual conduct in a rape prosecution.”
State v. LaMere, 655 P.2d 46 (Idaho 1982). · cites it 2× “And so as far as the possible description under Idaho Code 18-6105 on past sexual conduct of the prosecuting witness, we do not intend nor can we *74 prove by her testimony or that of any other individual she has engaged in any prior sexual conduct.”
Commonwealth v. Strube, 418 A.2d 365 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1979). · cites it 2× “, Comment, Idaho Code § 18-6105 : A Limitation on the Use of Evidence Relating to the Prior Sexual Conduct of the Prosecutrix in Idaho Rape Trials, 15 Idaho L.”
State v. Johnson, 944 P.2d 869 (N.M. 1997). “Idaho Code § 18-6105 . Professor Galvin includes Alaska, Colorado, Kansas, New Jersey, Rhode Island, South Dakota and Wyoming in this group, along with Arkansas, Idaho, New Mexico and Texas.”
State v. Manini, 659 A.2d 196 (Conn. App. Ct. 1995). “Idaho Code § 18-6105 (1987) provides in pertinent part: “The defendant may make application to the court before or during the trial for the admission of evidence concerning the previous sexual conduct of the prosecuting witness.”
State v. Gee, 470 P.2d 296 (Idaho 1970). · cites it 2× “Although the Idaho statute pursuant to which Monte Earl Gee was prose•cuted makes no reference to the chaste character of the prosecutrix, and her chastity is completely irrelevant as is the issue ■of her consent for purposes of proving the necessary elements of the crime of…”
Show all 13 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.