them to report the abuse. State v. Budis, 125 N.J. 519, 529, 593 A.2d 784 (1991). Once the statute is implicated, it triggers a pretrial notice and hearing requirement that applies to a defendant. N.J.S.A 2C:14-7(a); and see State v. Cuni 159 N.J. 584, 597, 733 A.2d 414 (1999). The statute does not impose a concomitant obligation on the State. A fair reading of the statute and the cases construing it, leads to a conclusion that it does not contemplate the circumstances presented here. However, even accepting the State’s contention that its proffer does not offend our Rape Shield Statute (N.J.S.A. 2C:14-7), this court concludes that this issue must be resolved within the context of our Rules of Evidence. See State v. Ryan, 157 N.J.Super. 121, 126, 384 A.2d 570 (App.Div.1978), (<HOLDING>). At least one appellate court has addressed
holding that sexual harassment need not take the form of sexual advances or other explicitly sexual conduct in order to be actionable under title vii holding that the trial court did not err by excluding the victims earlier reports of sexual abuse because too many sexual details remain unaccounted for after consideration of what defendant hoped to prove with the prior sexual conduct holding that a rape shield statute was not ex post facto when it barred evidence of a prior sexual relationship that was admissible before enactment of the statute holding that application of the rape shield law to a case in which the underlying events occurred prior to the enactment of the rape shield law was not a violation of the constitutional prohibition against ex post facto laws holding that our former rape shield statute njsa 2a84a321 did not alter the law in respect of evid r 47 predecessor to njre 404a which rule prohibited evidence of a sexual assault victims specific instances of sexual conduct with a person other than the accused to prove consent