sexual behavior inadmissible - Exceptions. A. In a criminal case in which a person is accused of a sexual offense against another person, the following is not admissible: 1. Evidence of reputation or opinion regarding other sexual behavior of a victim or the sexual offense alleged. 2. Evidence of specific instances of sexual behavior of an alleged victim with persons other than the accused offered on the issue of whether the alleged victim consented to the sexual behavior with respect to the sexual offense alleged.
B. The provisions of subsection A of this section do not require the exclusion of evidence of: 1. Specific instances of sexual behavior if offered for a purpose other than the issue of consent, including proof of the source of semen, pregnancy, disease or injury; 2. False allegations of sexual offenses; or 3. Similar sexual acts in the presence of the accused with persons other than the accused which occurs at the time of the event giving rise to the sexual offense alleged. C. 1. If the defendant intends to offer evidence described in subsection B of this section, the defendant shall file a written motion to offer such evidence accompanied by an offer of proof not later than fifteen (15) days before the date on which the trial in which such evidence is to be offered is scheduled to begin, except that the court may allow the motion to be made at a later date, including during trial, if the court determines either that the evidence is newly discovered and could not have been obtained earlier through the exercise of due diligence or that the issue to which such evidence relates has newly arisen in the case. Any motion made under this paragraph shall be served on all other parties by counsel for the defendant and on the alleged victim by the district attorney. 2. If the court determines that the motion and offer of proof described in paragraph 1 of this subsection contains evidence described in subsection B of this section, the court may order an in-camera hearing to determine whether the proffered evidence is admissible under subsection B of this section. Added by Laws 1975, c. 19, § 1. Renumbered from Section 750 of Title 22 by Laws 1992, c. 168, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1992. Amended by Laws 1993, c. 197, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1993.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
11
cases (
2 in the last 5 years), 1994–2025 · leading case:
Collins v. State, 2009 OK CR 32 (Okla. Crim. App. 2009).
Collins v. State, 2009 OK CR 32 (Okla. Crim. App. 2009).
· cites it 4× “[23] See 12 O.S.2001, § 2412 (quoted supra in note 20).”
People v. Fontana, 232 P.3d 1187 (Cal. 2010).
“02 (D); Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 2412 (B)(1); Or. Rev.”
Mitchell v. State, 884 P.2d 1186 (Okla. Crim. App. 1994).
“The trial court prevented Mitchell from cross-examining Harjo-chee regarding his sexual relationship with Scott, as that testimony was prohibited by the rape shield statute, 12 O.S.1992, § 2412. After Harjochee completed his testimony but before he was excused, Mitchell…”
Mitchell v. Ward, 150 F. Supp. 2d 1194 (W.D. Okla. 1999).
· cites it 3× “The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the trial court’s exclusion of this evidence and limitations on the cross-examination: *1233 tionship with Scott, as that testimony was prohibited by the rape shield statute, 12 O.S.1992 § 2412. 59 After Harjo-chee completed his…”
Ex Parte Dennis, 730 So. 2d 138 (Ala. 1999).
“412; Okla.Stat.Ann.tit. 12, § 2412; Tenn.R.Evid.”
Smith v. Bridges (W.D. Okla. 2025).
· cites it 4× “Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 2412 . diseases” or “anything about his suspicions of H.”
Portillo v. State, 211 So. 3d 1135 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017).
· cites it 2× “42 ; Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 2412 ; Or. Rev. Stat.”
James v. State, 2007 OK CR 1 (Okla. Crim. App. 2007).
“12 O.S.2001, § 2412. The spousal privilege recognized in 12 O.”
State v. Chambers (Idaho Ct. App. 2019).
“); Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 12, § 2412 (B)(2) (1993) (“False allegations of sexual offenses” are not subject to exclusion under this rule.”
White v. Crow (10th Cir. 2021).
“Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 2412 (A)(1). This rule of evidence adopts a limitation on evidence similar to that found in Federal Rule of Evidence 412.”
— Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 2412(A) — 1 case
Collins v. State, 2009 OK CR 32 (Okla. Crim. App. 2009).
“[23] See 12 O.S.2001, § 2412 (quoted supra in note 20).”
— Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 2412(A)(2) — 1 case
Mitchell v. Ward, 150 F. Supp. 2d 1194 (W.D. Okla. 1999).
“The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the trial court’s exclusion of this evidence and limitations on the cross-examination: *1233 tionship with Scott, as that testimony was prohibited by the rape shield statute, 12 O.S.1992 § 2412. 59 After Harjo-chee completed his…”
— Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 2412(B) — 2 cases
Collins v. State, 2009 OK CR 32 (Okla. Crim. App. 2009).
“[23] See 12 O.S.2001, § 2412 (quoted supra in note 20).”
Smith v. Bridges (W.D. Okla. 2025).
“Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 2412 . diseases” or “anything about his suspicions of H.”
— Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 2412(B)(1) — 1 case
Mitchell v. Ward, 150 F. Supp. 2d 1194 (W.D. Okla. 1999).
“The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the trial court’s exclusion of this evidence and limitations on the cross-examination: *1233 tionship with Scott, as that testimony was prohibited by the rape shield statute, 12 O.S.1992 § 2412. 59 After Harjo-chee completed his…”
— Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 2412(C) — 1 case
Smith v. Bridges (W.D. Okla. 2025).
“Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 2412 . diseases” or “anything about his suspicions of H.”
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.