Arizona Rape Shield Law: What Evidence Is Allowed? ARS 13-1421

What Is Arizona’s Rape Shield Law?

Arizona’s rape shield law is A.R.S. § 13-1421, titled “Evidence relating to victim’s chastity; pretrial hearing.” It governs whether anything about an accuser’s sexual history may be put in front of a jury in an Arizona sex crime prosecution. It applies to offenses in chapter 14 of title 13, to child sex trafficking under A.R.S. § 13-3212, and to sexual exploitation offenses under chapter 35.1.

Defendants and their families often assume this evidence is fair game. In Arizona courts it is the opposite: the statute begins from exclusion and opens only where the legislature said it opens. Understanding that early changes how a defense is built, because it means the case usually has to be won on the elements, the forensics, the timeline and the investigation — not on the accuser’s past.

What Evidence Does A.R.S. § 13-1421 Keep Out?

Two categories are barred outright, with no exception available:

• Reputation evidence about the accuser’s chastity.
• Opinion evidence about the accuser’s chastity.

No hearing, no balancing test, no route in. Everything else — evidence of specific instances of prior sexual conduct — is presumptively inadmissible and comes in only if it clears both the statutory exception list and a judicial balancing test.

The Five Exceptions Under A.R.S. § 13-1421

These are the only routes by which specific instances of an accuser’s prior sexual conduct may be admitted in an Arizona sexual offense prosecution:

1 Past sexual conduct between the accuser and the defendant

A.R.S. § 13-1421(A)(1)

The most commonly litigated exception. A prior consensual relationship between the same two people can bear directly on consent in the charged encounter. It is not a free pass: the judge still weighs relevance against prejudice, and a distant or tangential relationship is routinely excluded.

2 Evidence showing the source or origin of semen, pregnancy, disease or trauma

A.R.S. § 13-1421(A)(2)

Where the State offers physical findings as proof the offense occurred, the defense may show another source for them. This is the exception that most often turns on expert testimony rather than argument, because the alternative source has to be established, not merely suggested.

3 Evidence supporting a claim that the accuser has a motive to accuse falsely

A.R.S. § 13-1421(A)(3)

A custody dispute, an immigration consequence, a pending divorce, or a financial interest can supply a motive. The evidence has to connect to a real motive in this case — general suggestions of untruthfulness do not qualify and will not survive the hearing.

4 Impeachment where the prosecutor put the accuser’s prior sexual conduct in issue

A.R.S. § 13-1421(A)(4)

If the State opens the door by introducing the subject itself, the defense may respond to what was raised. The scope is limited to answering the State’s evidence; it does not reopen the subject generally.

5 Evidence of false allegations of sexual misconduct the accuser made against others

A.R.S. § 13-1421(A)(5)

Demonstrably false prior allegations against other people can be admissible. In practice this is the hardest exception to satisfy, because the defense must establish the prior allegation was actually false — not merely unproven, uncharged, or withdrawn.

The Pretrial Hearing and the Clear and Convincing Standard

Subsection (B) sets the procedure, and it is strict. This evidence may not be referred to in any statement to a jury or introduced at trial without a court order, and that order only follows a hearing on written motions. If new information surfaces mid-trial, the court may hold a further hearing on the same terms.

The standard of admissibility is clear and convincing evidence — higher than the preponderance standard that governs most evidentiary disputes. That elevated burden is why these motions are prepared like a small case of their own, with records, witnesses and often expert support, rather than argued from the podium.

How Tamou Law Group Handles an A.R.S. § 13-1421 Motion

The first decision is whether to file one at all. A motion that fails can signal the defense theory to the State months before trial and, if the material is weak, can cost credibility with the judge who will preside over the case. We assess whether the evidence genuinely fits one of the five exceptions before anything is drafted.

Where it does fit, the work is evidentiary rather than rhetorical: obtaining the underlying records, establishing the factual predicate to a clear and convincing standard, and preparing the expert support that subsections (A)(2) and (A)(5) usually require. Where it does not fit, the defense is built on the ground that actually decides most of these cases — whether the State can prove each element beyond a reasonable doubt. You can read more about that in our guide to winning a sexual assault case in Arizona, our page on attacking credibility and motive, and our overview of what to do after a false sexual assault accusation. If police have already contacted you, read about the confrontation call before you speak to anyone.