Law Review and Bar Journal References:

Protected testimony of rape victim, 18 W.L.J. 665, 667, 669, 670, 671, 672 (1979).

"Survey of Kansas Law: Evidence," Spencer A. Gard, 27 K.L.R. 225, 234 (1979).

"The Kansas Rape Shield Law," 2 J.K.T.L.A. No. 4, 11, 12 (1978).

"Kansas Recognizes Rape Trauma Syndrome," Charles H. Herd, 24 W.L.J. 653, 662 (1985).

"Are We Not Treating the Judiciary as the 'Ugly Duckling' of Government?" Ed Collister, 9 Kan. J.L. & Pub. Pol'y, No. 2, 302 (1999).

Attorney General's Opinions:

Rape; aggravated sodomy; rape shield statute; gender. 88-162.

CASE ANNOTATIONS

1. Applied; trial court did not abuse discretion in restricting cross-examination in prosecution for rape. State v. Corn, 223 Kan. 583, 585, 575 P.2d 1308.

2. Cited; court properly refused to allow questions concerning rape victim's prior sexual experience. State v. Cook, 224 Kan. 132, 135, 577 P.2d 257.

3. Section held constitutional; limitations on evidence of previous sexual conduct not violation of due process; conviction affirmed. State v. Williams, 224 Kan. 468, 469, 470, 580 P.2d 1341.

4. Statute constitutional; 6 th Amendment guarantees not offended; no abuse of discretion by trial court. State v. Blue, 225 Kan. 576, 578, 579, 580, 592 P.2d 897.

5. Construed and applied on appeal from conviction under K.S.A. 21-3502, 21-3205; section constitutional; judgment affirmed. In re Nichols, 2 Kan. App. 2d 431, 432, 433, 435, 436, 437, 580 P.2d 1370.

6. Mentioned; the trial judge has discretion to order a psychiatric examination of a complaining witness in a sex crime case. State v. Gregg, 226 Kan. 481, 489, 602 P.2d 85.

7. No abuse of discretion in excluding evidence of questionable relevancy, though possibly not within purview of section. State v. Washington, 226 Kan. 768, 773, 774, 602 P.2d 1377.

8. Conviction of rape upheld; victim's alleged prior sex acts not admitted because required affidavit not furnished. State v. Sanders, 227 Kan. 892 893, 610 P.2d 633.

9. Conviction of rape upheld; not error for trial court to exclude evidence of victim's prior sexual activity. State v. Anderson, 230 Kan. 681, 682, 640 P.2d 1232 (1982).

10. Rape victim's prior sexual activity generally inadmissible; no implication of consent to act complained of. State v. Stellwagen, 232 Kan. 744, 746, 747, 659 P.2d 167 (1983).

11. Evidence as to prior sexual conduct between defendant and victim, although material, was irrelevant as too remote. State v. Williams, 235 Kan. 485, 488, 489, 681 P.2d 660 (1984).

12. Admission of rape trauma syndrome testimony not violation of rape shield provisions. State v. McQuillen, 236 Kan. 161, 172, 689 P.2d 822 (1984).

13. Evidence of prior sexual conduct allowed if proven relevant to any fact at issue. State v. Bressman, 236 Kan. 296, 299, 300, 689 P.2d 901 (1984).

14. Evidence that victim pregnant would not tend to show intercourse was consensual. State v. Zuniga, 237 Kan. 788, 793, 703 P.2d 805 (1985).

15. Term "sexual conduct" is not so vague that person of common intelligence must guess at meaning. State v. Carmichael, 240 Kan. 149, 154, 156, 727 P.2d 918 (1986).

16. Defendant may not ignore requirements herein because of other crimes charged in addition to those covered. State v. Redford, 242 Kan. 658, 673, 674, 750 P.2d 1013 (1988).

17. Evidence of prior false accusations by complaining witness in indecent liberties (K.S.A. 21-3508) case is not evidence contemplated hereunder. State v. Barber, 13 Kan. App. 2d 224, 225, 226, 766 P.2d 1288 (1989).

18. Exclusion of testimony that victim formed social acquaintances with men on spontaneous basis examined. State v. Gonzales, 245 Kan. 691, 698, 783 P.2d 1239 (1989).

19. Defendant authorized to offer relevant rebuttal evidence where state introduces evidence of previous sexual conduct. State v. Beans, 247 Kan. 343, 348, 800 P.2d 145 (1990).

20. Two-fold purpose of statute stated; evidence that another may have committed alleged abuses that impeaches credibility of witness admissible. State v. Arrington, 251 Kan. 747, 749, 750, 840 P.2d 477 (1992).

21. Absent waiver, defendant's failure to comply with notice and hearing provisions precludes admission of evidence at trial. State v. Walker, 252 Kan. 117, 134, 843 P.2d 203 (1992).

22. Admissibility of rebuttal evidence offered concerning previous sexual conduct of victim examined; review of rape shield cases discussed. State v. Chandler, 17 Kan. App. 2d 512, 516, 839 P.2d 551 (1992).

23. Admissibility of evidence of prior sexual contact of sexually abused victim examined. State v. Walker, 252 Kan. 279, 285, 845 P.2d 1 (1993).

24. Admission of testimony as to the reputation or lack of veracity of complaining witness not violative hereof. State v. Lewis, 252 Kan. 535, 538, 847 P.2d 690 (1993).

25. Cited in holding court lacked jurisdiction to convict father of rape of 15 year-old daughter where father also convicted of aggravated kidnapping. Carmichael v. State, 18 Kan. App. 2d 435, 437, 856 P.2d 934 (1993).

26. Whether court abused discretion by suppressing evidence of prior sexual experience of child victim examined. State v. Lavery, 19 Kan. App. 2d 673, 679, 683, 877 P.2d 443 (1994).

27. Trial court's exclusion of relevant evidence of complaining witness under rape-shield statute constituted reversible error. State v. Perez, 26 Kan. App. 2d 777, 780, 995 P.2d 372 (1999).

28. Defendant's motion to admit evidence of previous sexual conduct was timely; denial of such requires reversal of conviction. State v. Bourassa, 28 Kan. App. 2d 161, 15 P.3d 835 (1999).

29. Improper to deny defendant opportunity to cross examine rape victim on events which explained physical evidence. State v. Atkinson, 276 Kan. 920, 80 P.3d 1143 (2003).

30. Confrontation clause held violated by district court's limitation on cross-examination. State v. Jackson, 39 Kan. App. 2d 89, 92, 177 P.3d 419 (2008).

31. Defendant precluded from offering evidence of victim's prior sexual conduct, no advance motion made pursuant to K.S.A. 21-3525(b). State v. Smith, 39 Kan. App. 2d 204, 214, 178 P.3d 672 (2008).

32. Defendant unsuccessfully argued that rape shield law not applicable; prior conduct not relevant. State v. Bello, 289 Kan. 191, 211 P.3d 139 (2009).

33. District court did not abuse its discretion in excluding evidence as too vague, speculative and uncorroborated to be probative. State v. Berriozabal, 291 Kan. 568, 243 P.3d 352 (2010).

34. Defendant failed to show either materiality or probativeness of the proffered evidence; the trial court's exclusion of evidence upheld. State v. Holman, 295 Kan. 116, 284 P.3d 251 (2012).

This website has moved to KSRevisor.gov