In a recent ruling from the Pennsylvania Superior Court, criminal defense lawyers now have clearer guidance around what evidence is admissible, or not, regarding a victim’s previous sexual activity.

Case Summary: Commonwealth v. Thomas, 2025 PA. Super 94

The defendant, Jeffrey Lynn Thomas, was convicted of criminal offenses following allegations that he forced his way into a woman’s house and sexually assaulted her by digitally penetrating her vaginally and anally. The defense theory at trial was that the encounter was consensual and, in keeping with that theory, the defense filed a pretrial motion seeking to admit 1) the fact that the victim had sent a sexually suggestive Snapchat photo to someone else immediately before the alleged assault, and 2) the fact that there were two other people’s sperm in her underwear in addition to the defendant’s non-sperm DNA. The trial court denied his motion as to both pieces of evidence, and the Superior Court affirmed.

Generally speaking, under Pennsylvania’s Rape Shield, the defense cannot use evidence of a victim’s past sexual behavior, even in when the defense is consent, because it challenges the victim’s proclivity for chastity or otherwise calls into question the victim’s alleged promiscuity. In other words, defendants are generally precluded by law from defending his case on the grounds a victim has been sexually active prior to the alleged sexual assault. Pennsylvania Courts must balance this general prohibition against a criminal defendant’s right to a fair trial.

In Thomas, the trial court precluded the defense from introducing the fact that two other samples of male sperm DNA were found in the crotch of the victim’s pants worn at the time of the assault. Thus, the jury only heard evidence that the defendant’s non-sperm DNA was found in the waistband of the victim’s pants. Similarly, the Snapchat photo, which contained sexually charged language intended for a third person, was precluded from evidence. The trial court explained that had the Snapchat been sent directly to the defendant, it would have been relevant. But, because it was sent to another person, it did not fall under the three exceptions (bias, motive and credibility) for piercing Rape Shield and thus could not be introduced at trial.

Impact of Commonwealth v. Thomas on Future Rape Cases

The Pennsylvania Superior Court’s decision in Commonwealth v. Thomas, 2025 PA Super 94, reinforces the strict application of the state’s Rape Shield Law, limiting a defendant’s ability to introduce evidence of a victim’s past sexual behavior—even when asserting a consent defense. The ruling makes clear that evidence such as sexually suggestive messages sent to others or the presence of other individuals’ DNA will not be admissible unless it fits narrowly defined exceptions (bias, motive, or credibility).

How does this impact you if you’re facing rape charges?

For future defendants, this decision underscores that courts are likely to exclude third-party sexual conduct evidence, even when it might appear relevant to a defense theory. The case confirms that consent alone does not open the door to introducing a victim’s past sexual behavior unless it directly involves the defendant or falls within one of the statutory exceptions. Defense attorneys must be prepared to build consent arguments without relying on the victim’s prior sexual history—placing greater emphasis on direct interactions between the defendant and the complainant. This is why it’s important to hire a lawyer that stays informed of new rulings from the Superior Court to ensure you can build the best defense possible.

To ensure you or your loved one receives a fair trial, you need to hire a lawyer with experience fighting against rape charges. Contact John McCaul today for a free consultation.