Cited. 195 C. 253; 197 C. 280; 199 C. 193; Id., 481; 207 C. 403; 208 C. 365; 209 Conn. 143; 220 C. 345; 228 C. 456; 230 Conn. 43. Defendant failed to make an adequate preliminary showing of relevancy in order to justify cross examination of plaintiff’s father about plaintiff’s statement concerning a prior sexual assault investigation. 244 C. 640. Court sets forth standard applicable to child sexual abuse cases re determining whether prior sexual conduct should be admissible at trial for purposes of showing an alternative source for victim’s sexual knowledge; standard also applicable for determining admissibility of evidence of prior sexual conduct for purposes of rebutting evidence offered by expert witness to show that a child exhibits behavior indicative of sexual abuse, by showing an alternative explanation for that behavior. 257 C. 156. Evidence of victim’s prior history of prostitution admissible to establish consent to sexual relations or motive to provide false testimony but not to establish general unchaste character. 270 C. 826; overruled with respect to conclusion that “material” refers to the constitutional standard for materiality, see 320 C. 781. Court improperly excluded testimony proffered by defendant re victim’s prior statements about past sexual conduct after victim testified to having no prior sexual experience at time of assault. 280 C. 36. Trial court properly exercised discretion by precluding inquiry into victim’s prior sexual assaults, as they were not relevant to any critical issue in present case, and defendant never offered any specific evidence of falsity. 295 C. 758. Evidence of victim’s prior sexual acts with a person other than defendant was not relevant to demonstrate alleged bias, motive or interest of victim and was properly excluded. 303 C. 589. Cited. 3 CA 374; 8 CA 44; Id., 190; 11 CA 673; 14 CA 451; Id., 688; 20 CA 263; 21 CA 411; 23 CA 221; Id., 225; 29 CA 409; Id., 642; 30 CA 56; 34 CA 473; 35 CA 173; 38 CA 100; 42 CA 445; 43 CA 667; Id., 680; Id., 715; 45 CA 116. Defendant’s rights under statute were impermissibly impaired when trial court excluded evidence of victim’s consensual sexual relations with the lead detective investigating her claim of sexual assault; such evidence was relevant to the substantive issue of consent raised by defendant and was offered for sole purpose of determining victim’s credibility and the inconsistency of her behavior following an alleged traumatic sexual assault. 57 CA 32. Court did not improperly exclude evidence of semen from third party on victim’s clothing. 68 Conn.App. 470. Legislative intent of rape shield statute discussed; legislature also provided for exceptions in rare instances; defendant entitled to proffer direct testimony re physical evidence tending to show misidentification; Subdiv. (1) does not specify that such evidence offered by defendant may be rebuttal evidence only. 85 CA 96. Court did not improperly exclude evidence concerning victim’s prior sexual conduct because court found that such evidence was not credible and therefore not relevant. 85 CA 575. Exclusion of evidence relating to victim’s alleged sexual interactions with his brothers did not violate defendant’s sixth amendment rights because such evidence was properly excluded as irrelevant. 99 CA 274. Trial court abused its discretion in refusing to grant evidentiary hearing to determine admissibility of evidence of plaintiff’s prior sexual conduct; evidence from police reports of two prior allegations, which presented facts that tended to demonstrate the falsity of plaintiff’s prior allegations, sufficient as offers of proof and relevant to the issue of whether defendant used force in committing the sexual assault. 106 CA 517; judgment reversed, see 295 Conn. 758. Defendant was properly prohibited from questioning victims about their sexual histories. 126 CA 437. Section abrogates common law rule that character of woman as to chastity is of considerable probative value in judging likelihood of consent. 177 CA 369. Subsec. (a): Court improperly excluded DNA evidence re semen from individual other than defendant under Subdiv. (1) because evidence was offered by defendant to prove misidentification by victim, not to expose victim’s past sexual conduct. 280 C. 285. Subdiv. (4): “Material” as used in section does not refer to the constitutional standard, but rather the evidentiary standard, that is, evidence is material when it has an influence, effect, or bearing on a fact in dispute at trial. 320 Conn. 781. Psychological injury is not recognized as an injury for purposes of Subdiv. (1); Subdiv. (2) does not apply where the only sexual conduct to which victim testifies is alleged sexual conduct by defendant; evidence admitted under Subdiv. (4) must be both material and relevant in order to be so critical that its exclusion could lead to a violation of defendant’s constitutional rights. 99 Conn.App. 274. Subdiv. (4): Trial court improperly precluded evidence of minor victim’s sexual relationship with boyfriend because state conceded that defendant showed that victim may have had a motive to lie about defendant’s sexual assault. 121 CA 534.