SB535

The earlier Rule 412, reproduced as the current rule in the court advisory committee’s June 2025 materials, PDF pages 105–106, covered sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault and attempts. It already excluded reputation/opinion evidence and imposed a private hearing, balancing test and five grounds for admitting specific instances. SB535 expands the offense coverage, expressly includes victims of other acts introduced in the case, requires a motion, and expressly limits the consent ground to offenses where lack of consent is an element. The safeguards are therefore not entirely new.

The introduced bill would have allowed the listed exceptions for reputation/opinion evidence as well as specific incidents. The Senate committee substitute separated those categories: the exceptions apply only to specific incidents, and it added the lack-of-consent-element condition. The sole indexed Senate floor amendment added indecent assault; it was adopted March 24 and survived in the final law. Engrossed, House committee and enrolled operative text match. See the version index and amendment index.

The courts subsequently replaced Rule 412, initially effective September 1, 2025, then amended it effective January 1, 2026. The December 19, 2025 final order expressly prohibits a defendant from referring to past-sexual-behavior evidence before the jury without first obtaining the court’s ruling. That later rule language should not be confused with an amendment adopted by the legislature in SB535. The order also preserves the former rule for proceedings that began before September 1, 2025.

Compare the published text versions in the official text index. A change is not attributed to a specific amendment here without a verified record.

Victims in the newly covered prosecutions receive the specified limits on sexual-history evidence. Defendants retain a route to seek relevant evidence under the listed grounds, including constitutional requirements, rather than a guarantee that every past incident will be excluded. Judges and lawyers must distinguish reputation/opinion evidence from specific incidents and handle the required private examination and sealed record. The act changes evidence procedure, not the elements or punishment of the listed crimes. See article 38.372.

The May 2, 2025 fiscal note anticipates no significant state or local fiscal effect and assumes costs can be absorbed with existing resources; the March 17 and March 18 notes agree. That is not proof of zero courtroom cost. The criminal-justice impact statement anticipates no significant correctional-resource impact. Neither document quantifies a reduction in victim harm, changes in convictions or monetary savings, and the act makes no appropriation.