had been previously molested. Specifically, Oatts argues that: (A) the exclusion of the evidence did not serve the purpose of Ind. Evidence Rule 412; and (B) the exclusion of the evidence violated Oatts’s right to cross examine witnesses guaranteed under the Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution and Article 1, Section 13 of the Indiana Constitution. A. Ind. Evidence Rule 412 Ind. Evidence Rule 412, the Rape Shield Rule, “incorporates the basic principles” of Ind.Code § 35-37-4-4, Indiana’s Rape Shield Act. State v. Walton, 715 N.E.2d 824, 826 (Ind.1999). Ind. Evidence Rule 412(a) governs the admissibility of evidence of past sexual conduct and provides: In a prosecution for a sex crime, evidence of the past sexual conduct of a victim or witness may not be admitted, e 1987) (<HOLDING>). Based upon these cases, we conclude that the
holding that mistake as to the age of the victim is no defense to statutory rape holding that the trial court properly refused to permit the defendant to question the nineyearold victim as to whether he had been sexually abused in the past because indianas rape shield statute shields the victim of a sex crime from a general inquiry into the history of past sexual conduct holding that uncharged sexual acts committed upon the same victim are admissible to show the conduct of the defendant toward the victim and to corroborate the evidence of the offense charged in the indictment holding that before a defendant is entitled to introduce evidence of the victims character for violence there must be sufficient evidence to support a finding that the victim was the first aggressor and that once the defendant testified that he was attacked and cut by the victim without provocation before using the victims utility tool to stab the victim the defendant was clearly entitled to question the victim about past acts of violence reflected in court documents from the state of oregon holding that a prosecutors questions eliciting testimony from a victim as to issue of virginity prior to the assault did not violate colorados rape shield statute because that statute does not specifically prohibit a victim from testifying as to a lack of prior sexual activity id at 1020