This bill strengthens protections for victims in civil cases involving sexual conduct. Here are its key elements:
Eliminates an Exception for Victim’s Sexual History:
Currently, a victim’s sexual history with the defendant can be introduced as evidence. This bill removes that exception, making such evidence inadmissible.
Prohibits Certain Evidence Related to Victim’s Appearance and Lifestyle:
Evidence about a victim’s manner of dress, hairstyle, speech, or lifestyle cannot be used to argue consent, question the victim’s credibility, or determine damages or harm.
Requires Pretrial Process for Admissibility of Presumed Irrelevant Evidence:
If a party wants to introduce evidence presumed irrelevant (such as sexual history), they must:
Raise the issue at a pretrial conference.
Prove that the evidence is relevant and admissible.
Show that further discovery could rebut the presumption of inadmissibility.
The other party has the right to object before the court makes a decision.
Limits Discovery with Protective Orders:
If the court allows discovery into the victim’s sexual conduct or history, it must issue a protective order to:
Restrict discovery to relevant issues.
Prevent unnecessary or overly broad investigation into the victim’s private life.
In essence, the bill enhances privacy protections for victims in civil proceedings, particularly regarding their sexual history, appearance, and lifestyle, while ensuring any exception is strictly controlled by the court.
Summary
Under current law, certain evidence of a victim's prior or
subsequent sexual conduct is presumed irrelevant and inadmissible in a civil proceeding, but there is an exception for evidence of the victim's prior or subsequent sexual conduct with the defendant. The bill eliminates this exception.
The bill prohibits the admission of evidence of the victim's manner of dress, hairstyle, speech, or lifestyle as evidence of the victim's consent, credibility, or the existence or extent of damages or harm.
The bill requires that the party moving to admit evidence presumed
irrelevant must raise the issue at a pretrial conference and make a prima facie showing that the evidence is relevant for an admissible reason and that discovery is likely to rebut the presumption of inadmissibility. The court is required to allow the nonmoving party to object. If the court allows discovery, the court must issue a protective order that limits the scope of discovery to relevant issues and protect against unwarranted, irrelevant, or overly broad discovery into the alleged victim's sexual conduct or history.
