How has section 782 of the California Code of Civil Procedure been interpreted in the context of sexual assault cases?

At least one court has noted an inherent tension between section 782 and section 1103, subdivision (c)(1) [formerly 1103, subd. (b)(1)prohibiting use of specific acts of sexual conduct by the victim to prove consent]. (People v. Rioz (1984) 161 Cal.App.3d 905, 915 (Rioz).) The procedures provided under section 782 and the discretion provided to the trial court in determining admissibility provides an appropriate resolution of that tension by "recogniz[ing] both the right of the victim to be free from unwarranted intrusion into her privacy and sexual life beyond the offense charged and the right of a defendant who makes the necessary sworn offer of proof in order to place the credibility of the complaining witness at issue to fully establish the proffered defense." (Rioz, at p. 917.) "Great care must be taken to insure that this exception to the general rule barring evidence of a complaining witness' prior sexual conduct... does not impermissibly encroach upon the rule itself and become a 'back door' for admitting otherwise inadmissible evidence." (Id. at p. 918-919.)