New York Assembly Bill A00104

New York 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 1/8/25
• Refer: 1/8/25
• Refer: 1/7/26

Caption

Removes from admissibility evidence that proves or tends to prove that a victim has been convicted of a prostitution offense within three years prior to the sex offense which is the subject of the prosecution.

Summary

This bill amends New York’s criminal procedure law governing rape shield protections in sex offense prosecutions. It removes a specific exception that currently allows evidence of a victim’s prior prostitution conviction, within three years of the charged sex offense, to be admitted in court. The bill keeps the general rule that a victim’s sexual conduct is inadmissible, while preserving the existing exceptions for prior sexual conduct with the accused, rebuttal of certain prosecution evidence, and other evidence the court finds relevant and admissible in the interests of justice after an offer of proof. In practical terms, the bill narrows the circumstances under which a defendant may introduce evidence of a victim’s prior prostitution-related conviction. The stated effect is to further limit use of a victim’s sexual history in sex offense cases and strengthen protections against prejudicial character evidence. The bill would take effect on November 1 following enactment.

Impact

The bill would amend section 60.42 of the Criminal Procedure Law, which sets the evidentiary rules for admissibility of a victim’s sexual conduct in prosecutions for sex offenses under article 130 of the Penal Law and section 230.34. By deleting the prostitution-conviction exception, it would make such evidence inadmissible solely on the basis of a recent prostitution offense conviction, while leaving the remaining statutory exceptions intact. The change would affect criminal prosecutions, defendants seeking to introduce victim sexual-history evidence, prosecutors, and victims of sex offenses.

Sentiment

The available context suggests the bill is framed in a protective, victim-centered way and is consistent with broader rape shield policy. The bill’s caption indicates a targeted effort to remove a specific category of admissible evidence, implying support for limiting potentially stigmatizing and prejudicial inquiries into a victim’s past. No committee transcript or vote record is available here, so there is no direct evidence of opposition or floor debate, but the measure appears to be presented as a narrow evidentiary reform rather than a broad criminal justice overhaul.

Contention

The main point of contention is likely whether evidence of a victim’s prior prostitution conviction should remain available to defendants in sex offense cases. Supporters would view the change as reducing unfair prejudice and discouraging attacks on a victim’s credibility based on sexual history, while opponents may argue that the evidence can be relevant in limited circumstances and that removing it could constrain a defendant’s ability to present a defense. The bill preserves a court-based “interests of justice” exception, which may be the mechanism for resolving disputes over relevance in individual cases.