§ 3104. Evidence of victim's sexual conduct.
(a) General rule.--Evidence of specific instances of the alleged victim's past sexual conduct, past sexual
victimization, allegations of past sexual victimization, opinion evidence of the alleged
victim's past sexual conduct, and reputation evidence of the alleged victim's past
sexual conduct shall not be admissible in prosecutions of any offense listed in subsection
(c) except evidence of the alleged victim's past sexual conduct with the defendant
where consent of the alleged victim is at issue and such evidence is otherwise admissible
pursuant to the rules of evidence.
(b) Evidentiary proceedings.--A defendant who proposes to offer evidence of the alleged victim's past sexual conduct,
past sexual victimization, allegations of past sexual victimization, opinion evidence
of the alleged victim's past sexual conduct and reputation evidence of the alleged
victim's past sexual conduct pursuant to subsection (a) shall file a written motion
and offer of proof at the time of trial. If, at the time of trial, the court determines
that the motion and offer of proof are sufficient on their faces, the court shall
order an in camera hearing and shall make findings on the record as to the relevance
and admissibility of the proposed evidence pursuant to the standards set forth in
subsection (a).
(c) Applicability.--This section shall apply to prosecutions of any of the following offenses, including
conspiracy, attempt or solicitation to commit any of the following offenses, enumerated
in this title:
Chapter 27 (relating to assault).
Chapter 29 (relating to kidnapping).
Chapter 30 (relating to human trafficking).
Chapter 31 (relating to sexual offenses).
Section 4302 (relating to incest).
Section 4304 (relating to endangering welfare of children), if the offense involved
sexual contact with the victim.
Section 6301(a)(1)(ii) (relating to corruption of minors).
Section 6312(b) (relating to sexual abuse of children).
Section 6318 (relating to unlawful contact with minor).
Section 6320 (relating to sexual exploitation of children).
(May 18, 1976, P.L.120, No.53, eff. 30 days; June 28, 2019, P.L.214, No.24, eff. 60
days)
Cross References. Section 3104 is referred to in section 3018 of this title.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
132
cases (
31 in the last 5 years), 1975–2026 · leading case:
Commonwealth v. Strube, 418 A.2d 365 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1979).
Commonwealth v. Strube, 418 A.2d 365 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1979).
· cites it 18× “That system, and society in general, has been severely criticized as being overly solicitous in protecting the interests of the alleged male perpetrator, to the virtual exclusion of the female's sensibilities and legal rights.”
Commonwealth v. Black, 487 A.2d 396 (Pa. 1985).
· cites it 10× “Appellant challenges the lower court's application of Pennsylvania's Rape Shield Law, 18 Pa.C.S. § 3104, [6] which prevented him from introducing evidence of prosecutrix' prior sexual conduct with one of her brothers.”
Commonwealth v. Majorana, 470 A.2d 80 (Pa. 1983).
· cites it 10× “18 Pa.C.S. § 3104. [2] Appellant argues that the trial court erred in refusing to allow Richard Nickol, the codefendant whom the complainant accused of the rape, to introduce evidence of an act of consensual intercourse between Richard and the complainant said to have occurred…”
Com. v. Cramer, R., III, 195 A.3d 594 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2018).
· cites it 2× “18 Pa.C.S. § 3104(a). The Rape Shield Law includes one statutory exception to the general prohibition against evidence of victim's past sexual conduct, namely, the admission of evidence of past sexual conduct with the defendant where consent is at issue.”
Commonwealth v. Nieves, 582 A.2d 341 (Pa. 1990).
· cites it 8× “The Rape Shield Law, codified at 18 Pa.C.S. § 3104, provides: (a) General rule.”
Commonwealth v. Johnson, 566 A.2d 1197 (Pa. 1989).
· cites it 8× “This evidence was disallowed by the trial court because of the Rape Shield Law, 18 Pa.C.S. § 3104. The panel originally assigned this case certified it to the Court en banc for resolution of the issue of whether the Rape Shield Law bars the admission of evidence of the victim's…”
Commonwealth v. Largaespada, 184 A.3d 1002 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2018).
· cites it 3× “'s past sexual conduct and provides, in pertinent part, as follows: Evidence of specific instances of the alleged victim's past sexual conduct, opinion evidence of the alleged victim's past sexual conduct, and reputation evidence of the alleged victim's past sexual conduct shall…”
Com. v. Faison, W., 297 A.3d 810 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2023).
· cites it 2× “3See 18 Pa.C.S. § 3104 (evidence of a victim’s past sexual conduct, though generally inadmissible, is permitted when the past sexual conduct is with the defendant and consent of the alleged victim is at issue).”
Commonwealth v. Miller, 987 A.2d 638 (Pa. 2009).
· cites it 2× “The Commonwealth objected arguing that the Rape Shield Law, 18 Pa. C.S. § 3104, prohibited the dissemination of such information and that the information the defense was seeking to elicit was irrelevant because the alleged abortion occurred five years prior to the slaying.”
Commonwealth v. Allburn, 721 A.2d 363 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1998).
· cites it 4× “If, at the time of trial, the court determines that the motion and offer of proof are sufficient on their faces, the court shall order an in camera hearing and shall make findings on the record as to the relevance and admissibilty of the proposed evidence pursuant to the…”
Commonwealth v. Purcell, 589 A.2d 217 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1991).
· cites it 4× “The Commonwealth, on the other hand, contended that introduction of the letters was barred by the Rape Shield Law, 18 Pa.C.S. § 3104. The trial court conducted an in camera hearing, examined the letters, and concluded that they were relevant to show bias.”
Commonwealth v. Boyles, 595 A.2d 1180 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1991).
· cites it 3× “2d at 720 (“[UnderJDboth Black and the statute itself (18 Pa.C.S. § 3104)[,] ... evidence of sexual conduct with third persons is irrelevant to prove either consent or general moral defect of the victim.”
— 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 3104(a) — 56 cases
Com. v. Cramer, R., III, 195 A.3d 594 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2018).
“18 Pa.C.S. § 3104(a). The Rape Shield Law includes one statutory exception to the general prohibition against evidence of victim's past sexual conduct, namely, the admission of evidence of past sexual conduct with the defendant where consent is at issue.”
Commonwealth v. Largaespada, 184 A.3d 1002 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2018).
“'s past sexual conduct and provides, in pertinent part, as follows: Evidence of specific instances of the alleged victim's past sexual conduct, opinion evidence of the alleged victim's past sexual conduct, and reputation evidence of the alleged victim's past sexual conduct shall…”
Commonwealth v. Black, 487 A.2d 396 (Pa. 1985).
“Appellant challenges the lower court's application of Pennsylvania's Rape Shield Law, 18 Pa.C.S. § 3104, [6] which prevented him from introducing evidence of prosecutrix' prior sexual conduct with one of her brothers.”
Commonwealth v. Majorana, 470 A.2d 80 (Pa. 1983).
“18 Pa.C.S. § 3104. [2] Appellant argues that the trial court erred in refusing to allow Richard Nickol, the codefendant whom the complainant accused of the rape, to introduce evidence of an act of consensual intercourse between Richard and the complainant said to have occurred…”
— 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 3104(b) — 19 cases
Commonwealth v. Strube, 418 A.2d 365 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1979).
“That system, and society in general, has been severely criticized as being overly solicitous in protecting the interests of the alleged male perpetrator, to the virtual exclusion of the female's sensibilities and legal rights.”
Commonwealth v. Nieves, 582 A.2d 341 (Pa. 1990).
“The Rape Shield Law, codified at 18 Pa.C.S. § 3104, provides: (a) General rule.”
Commonwealth v. Black, 487 A.2d 396 (Pa. 1985).
“Appellant challenges the lower court's application of Pennsylvania's Rape Shield Law, 18 Pa.C.S. § 3104, [6] which prevented him from introducing evidence of prosecutrix' prior sexual conduct with one of her brothers.”
Commonwealth v. Majorana, 470 A.2d 80 (Pa. 1983).
“18 Pa.C.S. § 3104. [2] Appellant argues that the trial court erred in refusing to allow Richard Nickol, the codefendant whom the complainant accused of the rape, to introduce evidence of an act of consensual intercourse between Richard and the complainant said to have occurred…”
Commonwealth v. Allburn, 721 A.2d 363 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1998).
“If, at the time of trial, the court determines that the motion and offer of proof are sufficient on their faces, the court shall order an in camera hearing and shall make findings on the record as to the relevance and admissibilty of the proposed evidence pursuant to the…”
— 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 3104(c) — 3 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.