The current study examined the impact of complainant sexual history evidence on mock jurors' judgements in a sexual assault trial. One hundred and sixty-nine undergraduates listened to an audiotape of a sexual assault trial in which the sexual history between the complainant and defendant was systematically varied to include either sexual intercourse, kissing and petting, or no history information. The effectiveness of judicial limiting instructions that accompany the introduction of sexual history evidence at trial was also examined. Compared to the control condition, those who heard evidence involving prior sexual intercourse between the complainant and defendant were less likely to find the complainant credible, more likely to find her blameworthy, and more likely to believe she consented. The information failed, however, to influence participants' judgements about the defendant's belief in consent. As well, the presence of limiting instructions did little to curb the prejudicial influence of this information. (Contains 1 figure.)