Opinion ID: 1444834
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: prior inconsistent statement of a witness

Text: Prior to trial, Richard moved in limine to allow impeachment testimony on the issue of whether Maria had told anyone that the victim had been sexually abused while in foster care. The defense expected Maria to deny making any statements regarding prior sexual abuse of the child, and indeed, at trial she did so deny making any such statement. Two witnesses made an offer of proof that Maria had told them that the child had been sexually abused while in foster care. Richard wished to introduce the testimony for impeachment purposes. The district court denied the motion without stating the grounds for the denial. On appeal, Richard argues that the prior inconsistent statement should have been admitted. We agree. NRS 50.135 [1] allows the introduction of a prior contradictory statement of a witness. Here, Maria was on the witness stand and available to explain or deny the alleged previous statement; both the defense and the prosecution had an opportunity to interrogate her regarding the statement. The inconsistent statement was also admissible as substantive evidence that the victim had previously been sexually abused while in foster care. See NRS 51.035(2)(a); [2] Miranda v. State, 101 Nev. 562, 567, 707 P.2d 1121, 1124 (1985). We therefore conclude that the district court erred in refusing to admit Maria's prior inconsistent statement.