Utah Supreme Court Clarifies Rape Shield Rule: Victims Cannot Be Compelled to Testify at Pretrial Hearings Under Rule 412
The decision, issued in State v. Jolley, 2025 UT 9, clarifies the scope of Utah’s rape shield law and sets a precedent for how trial courts must handle evidentiary motions related to a victim’s prior sexual conduct.
Facts
Seth Clark Jolley was charged with raping T.T. Before trial, Jolley sought to introduce evidence of prior sexual encounters between himself and T.T. to support a consent defense. Pursuant to Rule 412 of the Utah Rules of Evidence—which limits the admissibility of a victim’s sexual history—Jolley filed a motion requesting an in-camera (private) hearing to determine whether such evidence could be presented to a jury.
The district court granted the motion and ruled that Jolley could subpoena T.T. to testify at the hearing. T.T. objected, arguing that the rape shield rule did not allow a defendant to force an alleged victim to testify pretrial about sensitive sexual matters. The Court disagreed and ordered T.T. to appear. She petitioned the Utah Supreme Court for interlocutory review.
Issue
Can a defendant compel an alleged victim to testify at a pretrial Rule 412 hearing about past sexual conduct with the defendant?
Rule
Utah Rule of Evidence 412 generally prohibits the admission of a victim’s prior sexual behavior, subject to limited exceptions. One such exception allows evidence of specific instances of sexual behavior between the victim and defendant when offered to prove consent. Rule 412(c) outlines a mandatory procedure for evaluating such evidence, including an in-camera hearing at which the victim has “a right to attend and be heard.”
Application
The Court ruled that Rule 412 does not permit a defendant to subpoena or compel a victim to testify at the pretrial hearing. Instead, the rule obligates the party seeking admission of the evidence to describe it in a written motion with sufficient specificity to allow the Court to determine admissibility—without live testimony.
The Court emphasized that the hearing is intended for legal argument on admissibility, not for fact-finding or witness examination. Citing prior Utah case law, the Court reaffirmed that Rule 412 is not a tool for discovery or for testing witness credibility. Allowing compulsory testimony at this stage would defeat the rule’s protective purpose and risk deterring victims from participating in prosecutions.
The Court also rejected Jolley’s argument that excluding victim testimony would force him to testify and violate his constitutional rights. The opinion clarified that defendants are not required to testify to meet their Rule 412 burden; they must only describe the evidence they seek to admit and show its relevance.
Conclusion
The Utah Supreme Court reversed the district court’s denial of T.T.’s motion to quash the subpoena and held that defendants cannot compel victim testimony at Rule 412 hearings. The case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this ruling.
Why This Ruling Matters
State v. Jolley reaffirms the core intent of rape shield laws: to protect victims from intrusive and potentially retraumatizing legal processes. The ruling strengthens procedural safeguards that ensure sexual assault victims are not forced into unwarranted pretrial examinations of their sexual history. Going forward, Utah courts must strictly enforce the procedural limits of Rule 412, requiring defendants to make their case for admissibility through motions, not subpoenas.
This decision sends a clear message: Utah’s legal system will not allow rape shield rules to become backdoors for compelled victim testimony before trial.