Abbott v. State, 122 Nev. 715

Summary

The Nevada Supreme Court held that a criminal defendant may be entitled to an independent psychological examination of an alleged child victim when the requirements of Koerschner v. State are met, overruling the more restrictive standard in State v. District Court (Romano). The court also clarified that a clinical forensic interviewer may qualify as an expert witness when the interviewer analyzes interview facts or addresses coaching or bias. The court concluded that the trial court improperly excluded evidence of the victim's prior allegedly false allegations and reversed Abbott's convictions, remanding for a new trial.

Holdings

1. State v. District Court (Romano) impermissibly restricted a criminal defendant's access to an independent psychological examination of an alleged child victim. The court overruled Romano and reinstated the Koerschner test.
2. Abbott demonstrated a compelling need for an independent psychological examination because there was no corroborating evidence beyond the victim's testimony and there was a reasonable basis to question whether the victim's mental or emotional state affected her veracity.
3. For purposes of Koerschner, a clinical forensic interviewer is an expert witness when the interviewer does more than recite interview facts and instead analyzes those facts or states whether the victim was coached or biased. Chapman v. State was modified to reject its blanket rule excluding such interviewers from expert status.
4. Prior false allegations of sexual abuse or sexual assault are not barred by Nevada's rape-shield statute when they are relevant to the complaining witness's credibility. After the required hearing, the defendant must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the allegations were made, were false, and that the evidence is more probative than prejudicial.
5. When the defendant satisfies the Miller threshold, the defendant may introduce extrinsic evidence of the prior allegations if the victim denies making them or does not remember making them.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the district court abused its discretion by denying Abbott an independent psychological examination of the child victim.
2. Whether the court should overrule or modify State v. District Court (Romano) and reinstate the Koerschner standard governing independent psychological examinations of alleged child victims.
3. Whether a clinical forensic interviewer who analyzes an interview and assesses coaching or bias is an expert witness for purposes of the Koerschner standard.
4. Whether the district court erred by excluding evidence of the victim's prior false allegations.
5. Whether Miller v. State's preponderance-of-the-evidence standard and allowance of extrinsic evidence should be revised.
6. Whether Abbott's double-jeopardy argument required relief.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded