Mississippi Code

Miss. Code Ann. § 97-3-68 (2026)

Rape; procedure for introducing evidence of sexual conduct of complaining witness; "complaining witness" defined

✓ current as of July 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section JustiaMiss. Code CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(1) In any prosecution for rape under Section 97-3-65 or 97-3-71, if evidence of sexual conduct of the complaining witness is offered to attack the credibility of said complaining witness, the following procedure shall be followed:
- (a) 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 relevancy of evidence of the sexual conduct of the complaining witness proposed to be presented and its relevancy in attacking the credibility of the complaining witness.
- (b) The written motion shall be accompanied by an affidavit in which the offer of proof shall be stated.
- (c) If the court finds that the offer of proof is sufficient, the court shall order a closed hearing in chambers, out of the presence of the jury, if any, and at such closed hearing allow the questioning of the complaining witness regarding the offer of proof made by the defendant.
- (d) 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 otherwise admissible, 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.

(2) As used in this section and Section 97-3-70, "complaining witness" means the alleged victim of the crime charged, the prosecution of which is subject to this section.

Laws, 1977, ch. 438, § 1, eff. 7/1/1977.

Amended by Laws, 2023, ch. 483, HB 995,§ 4, eff. 7/1/2023.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 10 cases, 1985–2017 · leading case: Amacker v. State, 676 So. 2d 909 (Miss. 1996).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Amacker v. State, 676 So. 2d 909 (Miss. 1996). · cites it 10× “After hearing the witnesses offered to attack Jane's credibility, the trial court ruled that Johnny Martone could not specify the date upon which Chris Poole's alleged conduct occurred, and was therefore not able to testify under Miss. Code Ann. § 97-3-68 . The trial court also…”

Goodson v. State, 566 So. 2d 1142 (Miss. 1990). · cites it 2× “[9] I cannot ignore the glaring difference between this Court's treatment of our Legislative branch of government on statutes dealing with evidence, and the deference shown Congressional enactments on evidence by the Federal Courts.”

Walls v. State, 928 So. 2d 922 (Miss. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 2× “In order for this testimony to come into evidence, the defendant must file a motion with the court fifteen days prior to trial or make this motion later even during trial if evidence is newly discovered. M.R.E. 412(c)(1). A hearing is then conducted and the judge decides if the…”

Woodruff v. State, 518 So. 2d 669 (Miss. 1988). · cites it 2× “Miss. Code Ann. § 97-3-68 , 70 (Supp. 1977).”

Allen v. State, 749 So. 2d 1152 (Miss. Ct. App. 1999). · cites it 4× “Allen also alleges that his counsel failed to file an affidavit pursuant to section 97-3-68 of the Mississippi Code regarding evidence that the victim had engaged in sexual relations with someone other than Allen.”

Hernandez v. State, 137 So. 3d 889 (Miss. Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 2× “The State points to the circuit court’s reasoning as to why statutory rape is considered to be included in the offenses excepted from the general statute of limitations.”

Goss v. State, 465 So. 2d 1079 (Miss. 1985). “Goss followed the proper procedure for bringing such a motion as set forth in § 97-3-68 (Supp. 1984). The trial court's ruling on this issue is set forth below: The court finds these statutes to have been enacted for the purpose of shielding rape victims or claimants from a long…”

Monroe Amacker v. State of Mississippi (Miss. 1992). · cites it 10× “After hearing the witnesses offered to attack Jane's credibility, the trial court ruled that Johnny Martone could not specify the date upon which Chris Poole's alleged conduct occurred, and was therefore not able to testify under Miss. Code Ann. § 97-3-68 . The trial court also…”

Portillo v. State, 211 So. 3d 1135 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017). · cites it 2× “347 ; Miss. Code Ann. § 97-3-68 ; Mo. Rev. Stat.”

Poynor v. State, 962 So. 2d 68 (Miss. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 2× “Poynor asserted that this evidence was admissible pursuant to Rule 412 of the Mississippi Rules of Evidence and Mississippi Code Annotated section 97-3-68 (Rev.2006). During a hearing on Poynor's motion, the trial court ruled that Poynor's attorney had done "about all a defense…”

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.