Opinion ID: 2639002
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Application of Ohio v. Roberts to cases involving child witnesses

Text: In the modern context, prosecutorial agencies nationwide have developed the concept of victimless prosecutions in cases involving child witnesses. [13] Under Roberts, surrogates could testify to out-of-court statements made by child witnesses who, because of age or immaturity, might be too intimidated to testify in court. In Idaho v. Wright, the United States Supreme Court addressed this prosecutorial approach by setting forth a nonexclusive set of factors to guide consideration of the trustworthiness of a child witness's hearsay statements: (1) spontaneity and consistent repetition, (2) the mental state of the declarant, (3) use of terminology unexpected of a child of a similar age, and (4) lack of motive to fabricate. [14] NRS 51.385 tracks the Idaho v. Wright model: 1. In addition to any other provision for admissibility made by statute or rule of court, a statement made by a child under the age of 10 years describing any act of sexual conduct performed with or on the child or any act of physical abuse of the child is admissible in a criminal proceeding regarding that act of sexual conduct or physical abuse if: (a) The court finds, in a hearing out of the presence of the jury, that the time, content and circumstances of the statement provide sufficient circumstantial guarantees of trustworthiness; and (b) The child testifies at the proceeding or is unavailable or unable to testify. 2. In determining the trustworthiness of a statement, the court shall consider, without limitation, whether: (a) The statement was spontaneous; (b) The child was subjected to repetitive questioning; (c) The child had a motive to fabricate; (d) The child used terminology unexpected of a child of similar age; and (e) The child was in a stable mental state. In Bockting v. State , a child sexual assault case in which the State presented the victim's account through surrogate testimony, we upheld the validity of NRS 51.385 under Roberts and Wright. [15]