Missouri Revised Statutes

Mo. Rev. Stat. § 491.015 (2026)

Victim or witness in certain cases not to be interrogated as to prior sexual conduct

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MO-REVrevisor.mo.gov Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

491.015. Victim or witness in certain cases not to be interrogated as to prior sexual conduct. — 1. In prosecutions under chapter 566 or prosecutions related to sexual conduct under chapter 568, opinion and reputation evidence of a victim's or witness' prior sexual conduct, acts, or practices is inadmissible at any trial, hearing, or court proceeding and not a subject for inquiry during a deposition or discovery; evidence of specific instances of a victim's or witness' prior sexual conduct, acts, or practices or the absence of such instances or conduct is inadmissible at any trial, hearing, or any other court proceeding, and not a subject for inquiry during a deposition or discovery, except where such specific instances are:

(1) Evidence of the sexual conduct of a victim or witness with the defendant to prove consent where consent is a defense to the alleged crime and the evidence is reasonably contemporaneous with the date of the alleged crime; or

(2) Evidence of specific instances of sexual activity showing alternative source or origin of semen, pregnancy or disease;

(3) Evidence of immediate surrounding circumstances of the alleged crime; or

(4) Evidence relating to the previous chastity of the complaining witness in cases, where, by statute, previously chaste character is required to be proved by the prosecution.

2. Evidence of the sexual conduct, acts, or practices of a victim or witness offered under this section is admissible to the extent that the court finds the evidence relevant to a material fact or issue.

3. If the defendant proposes to offer evidence of the sexual conduct, acts, or practices of a victim or witness under this section, he or she shall file with the court a written motion accompanied by an offer of proof or make an offer of proof on the record outside the hearing of the jury. The court shall hold an in camera hearing to determine the sufficiency of the offer of proof and may at that hearing hear evidence if the court deems it necessary to determine the sufficiency of the offer of proof. If the court finds any of the evidence offered admissible under this section the court shall make an order stating the scope of the evidence which may be introduced. Objections to any decision of the court under this section may be made by either the prosecution or the defendant in the manner provided by law. The in camera hearing shall be recorded and the court shall set forth its reasons for its ruling. The record of the in camera hearing shall be sealed for delivery to the parties and to the appellate court in the event of an appeal or other post trial proceeding.

--------

(L. 1977 H.B. 502 § 1, A.L. 1986 S.B. 450, A.L. 2022 S.B. 775, et al.)

(1987) For purposes of subdivision (1) of subsection 1 of this section, two years has been held not to be "reasonably contemporaneous", even in circumstances where the element of consent is extraordinary. State v. Foulk, 725 S.W.2d 56 (Mo.App.E.D.)

(1993) Rape shield statute is intended to protect complaining witness from questions regarding prior sexual conduct and does not prevent defendant from cross examining witness concerning prior sexual abuse complaint to establish motive for witness to fabricate present complaint. State v. Lampley, 859 S.W.2d 909 (Mo. App. E.D.).

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 102 cases (13 in the last 5 years), 1979–2025 · leading case: State v. Raines, 118 S.W.3d 205 (Mo. Ct. App. 2003).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

State v. Raines, 118 S.W.3d 205 (Mo. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 17× “060, argues that he does have such a right and that the rape shield statute, Section 491.015, RSMo. (2000), does not prohibit his inquiry into the prosecutrix’s false allegations of rape.”

State v. Brown, 636 S.W.2d 929 (Mo. 1982). · cites it 20× “, dissents in separate dissenting opinion filed. SEILER, J., dissents and concurs in separate dissenting opinion of WELLIVER, J.”

State v. Harris, 620 S.W.2d 349 (Mo. 1981). · cites it 12× “His contentions of error include (1) an attack on the validity of § 491.015, RSMo 1978, [1] popularly known as the rape shield statute, contending it is violative of various provisions of the United States and Missouri Constitutions and that the trial court improperly excluded…”

State v. Long, 140 S.W.3d 27 (Mo. 2004). · cites it 12× “For the foregoing reasons, I would affirm the judgment. NOTES [1] All statutory references are to RSMo 2000.”

State v. Jones, 716 S.W.2d 799 (Mo. 1986). · cites it 16× “This case involves the Rape Victim Shield Statute§ 491.015, RSMo 1978. Insofar as pertinent on this appeal, it reads as follows: 1.”

State v. Smith, 157 S.W.3d 379 (Mo. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 19× “The defendant filed a motion pursuant to section 491.015 RSMo. 2000, to present evidence at trial of the victim’s prior sexual conduct.”

State v. Sales, 58 S.W.3d 554 (Mo. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 10× “We find that the trial court did not err in excluding evidence of the prior sexual attack upon the victim under the rape shield statute, § 491.015, RSMo; that the trial court did not err in not granting a mistrial because it granted the relief requested by Sales to order the…”

State v. Foulk, 725 S.W.2d 56 (Mo. Ct. App. 1987). · cites it 10× “Defendant recognizes that such evidence is presumed irrelevant under § 491.015, the "Rape Shield Law" unless it falls within one of the exceptions.”

State v. Smith, 314 S.W.3d 802 (Mo. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 10× “Defendant claims that the evidence was admissible under Mo.Rev.Stat. § 491.015 to prove consent, which was Defendant’s defense to the charges of forcible rape and forcible sodomy.”

State of Missouri v. Antonio Rycraw, 507 S.W.3d 47 (Mo. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 4× “Rycraw subsequently filed a written motion under Section 491.015 2 urging the trial court to reconsider.”

State of Missouri v. Phelton Johnson, 479 S.W.3d 762 (Mo. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 8× “Citing Missouri’s rape shield statute, Section 491.015, the trial court prohibited Johnson from questioning Victim about the prior rape.”

State v. Lampley, 859 S.W.2d 909 (Mo. Ct. App. 1993). · cites it 10× “The dissent relies on application of § 491.015 RSMo 1986. That statute is intended to protect a complaining witness from questions regarding prior sexual conduct.”

Show all 102 citing cases →

— Mo. Rev. Stat. § 491.015(1) — 2 cases

State v. Terry, 582 S.W.2d 337 (Mo. Ct. App. 1979).

State of Missouri v. Michael George Smith (Mo. Ct. App. 2024).

— Mo. Rev. Stat. § 491.015(3) — 3 cases

State v. Raines, 118 S.W.3d 205 (Mo. Ct. App. 2003). “060, argues that he does have such a right and that the rape shield statute, Section 491.015, RSMo. (2000), does not prohibit his inquiry into the prosecutrix’s false allegations of rape.”

State v. Salkil, 659 S.W.2d 330 (Mo. Ct. App. 1983).

State v. Hassler, 690 S.W.2d 178 (Mo. Ct. App. 1985).

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.