Opinion ID: 2631632
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 12

Heading: Prior false allegations Miller v. State [40]

Text: Abbott argues that the district court erred by refusing to admit evidence of the victim's prior false allegations and that the district court denied him a Miller hearing. Addressing first Abbott's contention that he did not get a Miller hearing, Abbott failed to follow the proper procedure discussed below for obtaining a Miller hearing with regard to the Colorado allegations. Abbott's counsel was waiting on records from Colorado to file the motion to admit the Colorado allegations. It is unclear whether those records were received prior to trial, but the records were not received prior to the district court order denying the admission of evidence of the Colorado allegations. Consequently, Abbott's counsel never formally, nor properly, moved for admission of the evidence of the Colorado allegations. [41] Although we conclude that Abbott failed to follow the proper procedure to receive a Miller hearing, we also conclude that the district court's exclusion of evidence of the Colorado investigation and other prior false allegations was plain error that affected Abbott's substantial rights. [42] The trial court has sound discretion to admit or exclude evidence of a victim's prior false allegations or prior sexual experiences. NRS 50.090, Nevada's rape shield law, precludes admission of a victim's previous sexual conduct. However, this court has carved out an exception to NRS 50.090, holding that it does not encompass prior false allegations of sexual abuse or sexual assault [43] because it is important to recognize in a sexual assault case that the complaining witness' credibility is critical and thus an alleged victim's prior fabricated accusations of sexual abuse or sexual assault are highly probative of a complaining witness' credibility concerning current sexual assault charges. [44] As such, `defense counsel may cross-examine a complaining witness about previous fabricated accusations, and if the witness denies making the allegations, counsel may introduce extrinsic evidence to prove that, in the past, fabricated charges were made.' [45] Before introducing evidence of prior false accusations, the defendant must file a notice of intent to cross-examine and present evidence regarding prior false allegations. The district court then conducts a hearing, outside the jury's presence, to determine the propriety of such questioning and the admissibility of corroborative evidence. [46] At that time, the defendant must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that (1) the accusations were made; (2) the accusations were false; and (3) the extrinsic evidence is more probative than prejudicial. [47] In addressing this issue, we were concerned over the rigor of Miller 's standards and procedures, and we ordered the parties to provide supplemental briefing discussing whether we should revisit and revise Miller. Unfortunately, Abbott's attorney argued that Miller should not be revisited because Miller strikes the right balance and the threshold for admission is not an exceedingly high threshold. In our opinion, with which Abbott would likely agree, Abbott's attorney should have taken this opportunity to advocate for a lowered evidentiary burden. In contrast, the State did not address Miller 's threshold for admission and, instead, argued that Miller should be revisited to overrule the portion that permits introduction of extrinsic evidence when the witness denies or does not remember making prior false allegations. After considering the supplemental briefing and hearing oral argument on this issue, we decline to revise Miller. We will first address the threshold standard for admission and then address the State's argument regarding extrinsic evidence.