Close-in-Age Exemptions by State — All 50 States (2026)

Q: What is a close-in-age exemption?

A close-in-age exemption is a statutory provision that reduces or removes criminal liability where two people are close in age and the younger is below the age of consent. They are commonly called Romeo and Juliet laws. The purpose is to keep consensual relationships between peers out of a criminal framework designed for exploitation by adults.

Q: Does every state have one?

No. Eight states have no formal close-in-age provision at all, and three more have provisions so narrow that they offer little practical protection to teenagers near the age of consent. In states without one, a two-year age gap between high school students can still support a felony charge.

Q: Does a close-in-age exemption make the conduct legal?

Not necessarily, and this is the most consequential misunderstanding on the subject. Depending on how the state has drafted the provision it may make the conduct lawful outright, or it may only reduce a felony to a misdemeanor, or only remove the sex-offender registration requirement while leaving the conviction in place. The label is the same in every state; the legal effect is not.

Q: What is the difference between an affirmative defense and an element of the offense?

Where the provision is written into the elements of the offense, the prosecution must prove the age gap falls outside the exemption in order to convict, and the conduct is simply not an offense if it does not. Where it is an affirmative defense, the defendant must raise it and typically bears the burden of establishing it at trial, which means arrest, charge and prosecution can all still occur. The practical difference is substantial.

Q: How wide an age gap do these provisions allow?

It ranges from two years to ten depending on the state, and in many states the permitted gap changes with the age of the younger party. Some states allow a wider gap for a 15- or 16-year-old than for a younger teenager. A single number cannot capture the structure in most jurisdictions.

Q: What voids a close-in-age exemption?

Most commonly a position of authority or trust. Teachers, coaches, guardians, employers, clergy and similar roles typically remove the protection entirely regardless of the age gap. Force, incapacity, the age of the younger party falling below a separate floor, and offenses involving images or online communication can also take a situation outside the provision.

Q: Do these provisions apply to offenses involving images or messaging?

Usually not. Statutes covering images and online solicitation are typically drafted with 18 as the threshold and without close-in-age relief, which means conduct protected under a state's age-of-consent statute can still constitute a serious separate offense, often a federal one. This gap catches people out regularly.

Q: Which state's provision applies?

Generally that of the state where the conduct occurred, not where either person lives. Crossing a state line can move a situation from a jurisdiction with a broad exemption into one with none. Travel or communication across state lines can also bring federal statutes into play alongside state law.

Close-in-age provisions — commonly called Romeo and Juliet laws — reduce or remove criminal liability when two people are close in age and the younger is below the age of consent. The permitted gap, and the legal effect of the provision, vary considerably by state.

These provisions exist because age-of-consent statutes are drafted to address exploitation by adults, and applying them without qualification to two teenagers of similar age produces outcomes the statutes were never designed to reach. Most states have adopted some form of relief. 8 have not, and in those states a modest age gap between high school students can still support a felony charge.

The same label, four different legal effects

The single most important thing to understand is that “Romeo and Juliet law” is not a term of art. It describes a family of provisions that operate in structurally different ways, and the difference determines what actually happens to someone.

Written into the elements of the offense. The prosecution must prove the age gap falls outside the exemption. If it does not, there is no offense. This is the strongest form.
An affirmative defense. The defendant must raise it, and usually bears the burden of establishing it at trial. Arrest, charge and prosecution can all still occur before it is ever considered.
A grade reduction. The conduct remains criminal, but is charged as a misdemeanor rather than a felony. A conviction still results.
Registration relief only. The conviction stands; the sex-offender registration requirement does not attach. This is the narrowest form and is easily mistaken for a full exemption.

Two states can therefore permit an identical age gap and produce entirely different outcomes on identical facts. Reading the permitted gap without reading the mechanism tells you very little.

States with no close-in-age provision

These 8 states have no formal close-in-age exemption. The age of consent operates as a hard line, and proximity in age does not itself provide relief:

California — age of consent 18
Massachusetts — age of consent 16
Nevada — age of consent 16
New York — age of consent 17
North Dakota — age of consent 18
South Carolina — age of consent 16
Vermont — age of consent 16
Wisconsin — age of consent 18

A further 3 states (Arkansas, Kentucky, Oklahoma) have provisions narrow enough that they offer little practical protection to teenagers approaching the age of consent, typically because the relief is confined to much younger age bands.

The absence of a provision does not mean prosecution is automatic. Charging decisions rest with prosecutors, and consensual peer relationships are frequently not pursued. But that is discretion rather than protection, and it is not something anyone can rely on in advance.

Every state compared

Select any state for the full statutory summary, including penalties and definitions. The figures below describe the general provision and do not capture every age band or exception.

Close-in-age exemptions and age of consent for all fifty U.S. states
State	Age of consent	Close-in-age provision
Alabama	16	Yes — within 2 years
Alaska	16	Yes — a 3-year age difference is required for liability where the minor is 13–15
Arizona	18	Yes — within 2 years if 15-17
Arkansas	16	Limited — 3-year defense only under 14
California	18	No formal exemption
Colorado	17	Yes — within 4 years (under 15) / 10 years (15-16)
Connecticut	16	Yes — 13–15 with actor less than 3 years older
Delaware	18	4-year defense applies to ages 12–15, not 16–17
Florida	18	Yes — 16-17 with partner under 24
Georgia	16	Yes — misdemeanor if within 4 years
Hawaii	16	Yes — 14–15 with actor less than 5 years older
Idaho	18	Yes — 16–17 with actor less than 3 years older
Illinois	17	Yes — 13–16 with actor less than 5 years older (misdemeanor)
Indiana	16	Yes — gap of 4 years or less, plus an ongoing relationship requirement
Iowa	16	Yes — 4-year gap, but only one of four triggering circumstances
Kansas	16	Yes — victim 14–15, offender under 19, gap under 4 years
Kentucky	16	Limited — offender-age floors, not a gap rule
Louisiana	17	Yes — graduated: ≤2 years no offense, >2–<4 misdemeanor, ≥4 felony
Maine	16	Yes — 14–15, actor must be 18+ AND 5+ years older to offend
Maryland	16	Yes — 14–15 under 4 years; 4+ years is a misdemeanor until the actor turns 21
Massachusetts	16	No formal exemption
Michigan	16	Registry relief only — victim 13–15, offender not more than 4 years older
Minnesota	16	Yes — tiered in months: 36 (under 14), 24 (14–15), 48 (16–17 with authority)
Mississippi	16	Yes — 14–15: actor 18+ and 36+ months older; under 14: actor 17+ and 24+ months
Missouri	17	Two frameworks — statutory rape needs an actor 21+; molestation uses a 4-year gap
Montana	16	Gaps sit in the penalties (3 yrs contact / 4 yrs penetration), plus a mistake-of-age defense
Nebraska	16	Actor-age floor of 19, not a gap rule
Nevada	16	Not a gap rule — two floors keyed to the actor's own age, 18 and 21
New Hampshire	16	5 years for contact with a 13–15-year-old; no gap at all for penetration
New Jersey	16	Yes — 13–15 with actor less than 4 years older; 16–17 governed by relationship
New Mexico	17	Two stacked requirements — actor 18+ AND at least 4 years older
New York	17	No formal exemption
North Carolina	16	Yes — within 4 years
North Dakota	18	Not a gap rule — a misdemeanor tier where the adult is under 22 and the minor is 15–17
Ohio	16	Yes — within 4 years (13-15)
Oklahoma	16	Limited
Oregon	18	Yes — an affirmative defense where the actor is less than 3 years older
Pennsylvania	16	Yes — under 16 with actor less than 4 years older; graded at 4 and 11 years
Rhode Island	16	Actor-age floor of over 18, not a gap rule
South Carolina	16	None — graded by the victim's age band, not by an age gap
South Dakota	16	Yes — 13–15 with perpetrator less than 3 years older
Tennessee	18	Yes — 13–17 with defendant less than 4 years older; then graded at 5 and 10 years
Texas	17	Yes — 3-year affirmative defense, victim 14+, actor not already a registrant
Utah	18	16–17: 7 to under 10 years with knowledge of age; 10+ years under a separate branch
Vermont	16	Not a gap rule — actor under 19, child at least 15, conduct consensual
Virginia	18	Misdemeanor for ages 15–17 regardless of gap; 3-year rule applies only between minors at 13–14
Washington	16	Yes — within 2-3 years (tiered)
West Virginia	16	Under 4 years (under 16), actor 16+ — but § 61-8D-5 overrides it in most real cases
Wisconsin	18	None — no close-in-age exemption of any kind
Wyoming	17	13–15: actor must be 17+ AND 4+ years older; 16–17 needs a position of authority

What removes the protection

Even where a provision exists and the age gap falls within it, a number of circumstances take a situation outside its scope entirely:

A position of authority or trust. Teachers, coaches, guardians, employers, clergy, correctional staff and medical providers are the categories that appear most often. This is the most common way the protection is lost.
A separate age floor. Many provisions cease to apply below a certain age regardless of how small the gap is.
Force, coercion or incapacity. These take the conduct out of the statutory framework and into offenses where consent is directly at issue.
Images and online communication. Typically governed by separate statutes using 18 as the threshold, frequently with no close-in-age relief and often with federal exposure. See sexting laws by state.
Crossing a state line. The governing law is that of the place the conduct occurred, and interstate travel or communication can add federal statutes on top.

Common misconceptions

That a close-in-age provision is a licence. It is a limitation on the reach of a criminal statute, not an authorisation. In its narrower forms it does not prevent a conviction at all.

That the age gap is the only variable. The age of the younger party often matters independently, and many states scale the permitted gap to it.

That it protects both parties equally. Provisions are generally drafted around the age of the younger person and the size of the gap, and the analysis is not symmetrical.

That a summary is sufficient. These are among the most technically drafted provisions in a state criminal code, and appellate interpretation shifts how they operate without any change to the text.

If you need help

Nothing on this page can tell you whether a particular situation falls inside or outside a provision. If you are dealing with a real matter, speak to a licensed criminal defense attorney in the relevant state — the lawyer directory is organised by state, and the legal aid directory covers free and low-cost representation. If you or someone you know has been harmed, the victim support resources page lists confidential services.

Related guides

Frequently Asked Questions