(1) In this child sex case, evidence that the victim was discovered watching a pornographic video, offered by the defendant to show the victim’s sexual knowledge, is not evidence of sexual activity barred by the Rape Shield Statute. (2) Evidence offered by the defendant of the child victim’s prior allegations and inconsistent statements about sexual assaults committed by others who were living in the house were not barred by the Rape Shield Statute, and the trial court erred by excluding this evidence. False accusations do not fall within the scope of the Rape Shield Statute and may be admissible to attack the victim’s credibility. The court was careful however not to “hold the statements necessarily should have been admitted into evidence at trial;” it indicated that whether the victim’s “prior allegations and inconsistent statements come into the evidence at trial should be determined on retrial subject to a proper Rule 403 analysis.”