(a) In a prosecution for a crime defined in this chapter and in sections 2601 and 2602 of this title, for human trafficking or aggravated human trafficking under chapter 60 of this title,
or for abuse of a vulnerable adult under chapter 28 of this title or 33 V.S.A. chapter 69:
(1) Neither opinion evidence of nor evidence of the reputation of the complaining witness’
sexual conduct shall be admitted.
(2) Evidence shall be required as it is for all other criminal offenses, and additional
corroborative evidence set forth by case law regarding sexual assault shall no longer
be required.
(3) Evidence of prior sexual conduct of the complaining witness shall not be admitted;
provided, however, where it bears on the credibility of the complaining witness or
it is material to a fact at issue and its probative value outweighs its private character,
the court may admit:
(A) evidence of the complaining witness’ past sexual conduct with the defendant;
(B) evidence of specific instances of the complaining witness’ sexual conduct showing
the source of origin of semen, pregnancy, or disease; and
(C) evidence of specific instances of the complaining witness’ past false allegations
of violations of this chapter.
(b) In a prosecution for a crime defined in this chapter and in a prosecution pursuant
to sections 2601 and 2602 of this title, for human trafficking or aggravated human trafficking under chapter 60 of this title,
or for abuse or exploitation of a vulnerable adult under 33 V.S.A. § 6913(b), if a defendant proposes to offer evidence described in subdivision (a)(3) of this
section, the defendant shall prior to the introduction of such evidence file written
notice of intent to introduce that evidence, and the court shall order an in camera
hearing to determine its admissibility. All objections to materiality, credibility,
and probative value shall be stated on the record by the prosecutor at the in camera
hearing, and the court shall rule on the objections forthwith, and prior to the taking
of any other evidence.
(c) In a prosecution for a crime defined in this chapter and in sections 2601 and 2602 of this title or for human trafficking or aggravated human trafficking under chapter 60 of this
title, if the defendant takes the deposition of the complaining witness, questions
concerning the evidence described in subdivisions (a)(1) and (3) of this section shall
not be permitted. (Added 1977, No. 51, § 1; amended 1993, No. 100, § 14; 1995, No. 170 (Adj. Sess.), § 23, eff. Sept. 1, 1996; 2011, No. 55, § 8; 2017, No. 113 (Adj. Sess.), § 50.)
State v. Patnaude, 438 A.2d 402 (Vt. 1981). · cites it 16דIn fact, at the pretrial in camera hearing, held pursuant to 13 V.S.A. § 3255(b), to determine the admissibility of ten separate items of defense evidence, defense counsel specifically assured the trial judge that they were not seeking to have 13 V.”
State v. Memoli, 2011 VT 15 (Vt. 2011). · cites it 8דThe trial court cited two grounds for its decision to exclude evidence of complainant's prior and subsequent drug use: the rape shield statute and lack of relevancy to the issue of consent. Neither provides a legal basis for exclusion of defendant's proffered evidence.”
State v. Patten, 197 A.3d 873 (Vt. 2018). · cites it 7ד" 13 V.S.A. § 3255(a)(3) ; State v. Lavalette , 154 Vt.”
State v. Catsam, 534 A.2d 184 (Vt. 1987). · cites it 4דThe trial court barred this line of cross-examination on the basis of the Rape Shield Law, 13 V.S.A. § 3255. 3 Defendant maintains that the court’s application of the Rape Shield Law vi- *373 dated his right to be confronted with the witnesses against him, as guaranteed by the…”
State v. Ross, 568 A.2d 335 (Vt. 1989). · cites it 4דThe State moved in limine to exclude evidence of the victim's prior sexual conduct under the Rape Shield Law, 13 V.S.A. § 3255. During argument before jury selection, defense counsel indicated in somewhat vague terms that several named relatives and other unnamed people, in…”
State v. Goodnow, 649 A.2d 752 (Vt. 1994). · cites it 7ד13 V.S.A. § 3255(a)(3). The prohibition is based on a legislative determination that such evidence is worthless and legally irrelevant.”
State v. Gonyaw, 507 A.2d 944 (Vt. 1985). · cites it 6דThe State argues that decisions on the admissibility of evidence should be left to the discretion of the trial judge, and should not be overturned absent a showing of an abuse of discretion.”
State v. Bevins, 439 A.2d 271 (Vt. 1981). · cites it 5דThe defendant also claims that the trial court erred in excluding, under 13 V.S.A. § 3255 (a) (3), evidence of the sexual conduct between the complaining witness and a person other than the defendant on the night of the sexual assault.”
State v. Hammond, 2012 VT 48 (Vt. 2012). · cites it 3דDefendant argues that: (1) he was entitled to a judgment of acquittal based on the complainant’s contradictory and otherwise *50 incredible testimony; (2) alternatively, he is entitled to a new trial for the same reasons; (3) the court’s jury instructions were erroneous; (4) the…”
People v. Fontana, 232 P.3d 1187 (Cal. 2010). “, rule 412(b)(1); Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 13, § 3255 (a)(3)(B); Va.”
State v. Rehkop, 2006 VT 72 (Vt. 2006). “For example, in Roya , where the defendant challenged the constitutionality of a provision of our rape-shield statute, 13 V.S.A. § 3255(c), which prohibits a defendant from questioning a complaining witness during deposition about prior sexual conduct except in limited…”
State v. Burke, 2012 VT 50 (Vt. 2012). “13 V.S.A. § 3255(a)(3)(C). ¶20. Defendant contends that Judge Keller initially indicated that he would allow defendant to utilize the Rape Shield exception described above, but that Judge Katz refused to allow the evidence.”
State v. Patnaude, 438 A.2d 402 (Vt. 1981). “In fact, at the pretrial in camera hearing, held pursuant to 13 V.S.A. § 3255(b), to determine the admissibility of ten separate items of defense evidence, defense counsel specifically assured the trial judge that they were not seeking to have 13 V.”
State v. Bevins, 439 A.2d 271 (Vt. 1981). “The defendant also claims that the trial court erred in excluding, under 13 V.S.A. § 3255 (a) (3), evidence of the sexual conduct between the complaining witness and a person other than the defendant on the night of the sexual assault.”
State v. Patnaude, 438 A.2d 402 (Vt. 1981). “In fact, at the pretrial in camera hearing, held pursuant to 13 V.S.A. § 3255(b), to determine the admissibility of ten separate items of defense evidence, defense counsel specifically assured the trial judge that they were not seeking to have 13 V.”
State v. Memoli, 2011 VT 15 (Vt. 2011). “The trial court cited two grounds for its decision to exclude evidence of complainant's prior and subsequent drug use: the rape shield statute and lack of relevancy to the issue of consent. Neither provides a legal basis for exclusion of defendant's proffered evidence.”
State v. Catsam, 534 A.2d 184 (Vt. 1987). “The trial court barred this line of cross-examination on the basis of the Rape Shield Law, 13 V.S.A. § 3255. 3 Defendant maintains that the court’s application of the Rape Shield Law vi- *373 dated his right to be confronted with the witnesses against him, as guaranteed by the…”
State v. Patten, 197 A.3d 873 (Vt. 2018). “" 13 V.S.A. § 3255(a)(3) ; State v. Lavalette , 154 Vt.”
State v. Bevins, 439 A.2d 271 (Vt. 1981). “The defendant also claims that the trial court erred in excluding, under 13 V.S.A. § 3255 (a) (3), evidence of the sexual conduct between the complaining witness and a person other than the defendant on the night of the sexual assault.”
State v. Patten, 197 A.3d 873 (Vt. 2018). “" 13 V.S.A. § 3255(a)(3) ; State v. Lavalette , 154 Vt.”
State v. Patnaude, 438 A.2d 402 (Vt. 1981). “In fact, at the pretrial in camera hearing, held pursuant to 13 V.S.A. § 3255(b), to determine the admissibility of ten separate items of defense evidence, defense counsel specifically assured the trial judge that they were not seeking to have 13 V.”
State v. Hammond, 2012 VT 48 (Vt. 2012). “Defendant argues that: (1) he was entitled to a judgment of acquittal based on the complainant’s contradictory and otherwise *50 incredible testimony; (2) alternatively, he is entitled to a new trial for the same reasons; (3) the court’s jury instructions were erroneous; (4) the…”
State v. Gonyaw, 507 A.2d 944 (Vt. 1985). “The State argues that decisions on the admissibility of evidence should be left to the discretion of the trial judge, and should not be overturned absent a showing of an abuse of discretion.”
State v. Catsam, 534 A.2d 184 (Vt. 1987). “The trial court barred this line of cross-examination on the basis of the Rape Shield Law, 13 V.S.A. § 3255. 3 Defendant maintains that the court’s application of the Rape Shield Law vi- *373 dated his right to be confronted with the witnesses against him, as guaranteed by the…”
State v. Goodnow, 649 A.2d 752 (Vt. 1994). “13 V.S.A. § 3255(a)(3). The prohibition is based on a legislative determination that such evidence is worthless and legally irrelevant.”
State v. Burke, 2012 VT 50 (Vt. 2012). “13 V.S.A. § 3255(a)(3)(C). ¶20. Defendant contends that Judge Keller initially indicated that he would allow defendant to utilize the Rape Shield exception described above, but that Judge Katz refused to allow the evidence.”
State v. Patten, 197 A.3d 873 (Vt. 2018). “" 13 V.S.A. § 3255(a)(3) ; State v. Lavalette , 154 Vt.”
State v. Gonyaw, 507 A.2d 944 (Vt. 1985). “The State argues that decisions on the admissibility of evidence should be left to the discretion of the trial judge, and should not be overturned absent a showing of an abuse of discretion.”
State v. Patnaude, 438 A.2d 402 (Vt. 1981). “In fact, at the pretrial in camera hearing, held pursuant to 13 V.S.A. § 3255(b), to determine the admissibility of ten separate items of defense evidence, defense counsel specifically assured the trial judge that they were not seeking to have 13 V.”
State v. Goodnow, 649 A.2d 752 (Vt. 1994). “13 V.S.A. § 3255(a)(3). The prohibition is based on a legislative determination that such evidence is worthless and legally irrelevant.”
— Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 13, § 3255(c) — 2 cases
State v. Rehkop, 2006 VT 72 (Vt. 2006). “For example, in Roya , where the defendant challenged the constitutionality of a provision of our rape-shield statute, 13 V.S.A. § 3255(c), which prohibits a defendant from questioning a complaining witness during deposition about prior sexual conduct except in limited…”
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.