House Bill 25-1138 Revised

LLS NO. 25-0378.02 Jacob Baus x2173
First Regular Session
Seventy-fifth General Assembly
State of Colorado

House Sponsorship

Lukens and Pugliese, Bird, Armagost, Bacon, Boesenecker, Bradley, Caldwell, Duran, English, Espenoza, Froelich, Garcia, Gonzalez R., Hamrick, Hartsook, Jackson, Keltie, Lieder, Lindsay, Lindstedt, Mabrey, Martinez, Mauro, McCluskie, Rutinel, Sirota, Stewart K., Stewart R., Story, Titone, Valdez, Willford, Winter T., Woodrow

Senate Sponsorship

Kirkmeyer and Daugherty, Frizell


This Version Includes All Amendments Adopted on Second Reading in the Second House

Senate 2nd Reading Unamended March 6, 2025

House 3rd Reading Unamended February 7, 2025

House Amended 2nd Reading February 6, 2025


House Committees

Judiciary

Senate Committees

Judiciary


Strikethrough:
removed from existing law
Screen Reader Only:
all text indicated as strikethrough will begin as 'deleted from existing statue' and finish with 'end deletion'
All-caps or Bold and Italic:
added to existing law
Screen Reader Only:
all text indicated as all-caps or bold and italic will begin as 'added to existing law' and finish with 'end insertion'
Underline:
Senate Amendment
Highlight:
House Amendment

A Bill for an Act


Bill Summary

(Note: This summary applies to this bill as introduced and does not reflect any amendments that may be subsequently adopted. If this bill passes third reading in the house of introduction, a bill summary that applies to the reengrossed version of this bill will be available at http://leg.colorado.gov.)

Under current law, certain evidence of a victim's prior or subsequent sexual conduct is presumed irrelevant and inadmissible in a civil proceeding, but there is an exception for evidence of the victim's prior or subsequent sexual conduct with the defendant. The bill eliminates this exception.

The bill prohibits the admission of evidence of the victim's manner of dress, hairstyle, speech, or lifestyle as evidence of the victim's consent, credibility, or the existence or extent of damages or harm.

The bill requires that the party moving to admit evidence presumed irrelevant must raise the issue at a pretrial conference and make a prima facie showing that the evidence is relevant for an admissible reason and that discovery is likely to rebut the presumption of inadmissibility. The court is required to allow the nonmoving party to object. If the court allows discovery, the court must issue a protective order that limits the scope of discovery to relevant issues and protect against unwarranted, irrelevant, or overly broad discovery into the alleged victim's sexual conduct or history.