Opinion ID: 2631632
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 13

Heading: Threshold standards for admissibility the preponderance of the evidence standard

Text: Two of the reasons courts permit introduction of prior false allegations are because prior false allegations are intertwined with the defense theory that the witness had a motive to fabricate the current charges because she had fabricated charges in the past, [48] and because prior false allegations are part of affording a defendant the due process right to `a fair opportunity to defend against the State's accusations.' [49] Most courts require a threshold showing that the prior allegations were made and were false. [50] However, courts differ on the appropriate burden for proving falsity. [51] The required showings range from high to low, or from clear and convincing evidence, [52] to Nevada's preponderance of the evidence standard, [53] to a showing of falsity. [54] No matter the formulation, the concern expressed by every court in announcing its standard is that there is an adequate showing of falsity prior to admitting the allegations. In doing so, courts are attempting to balance the defendant's constitutional rights with desires to keep the victim free from harassment and to maximize judicial economy. [55] After Miller, this court described the preponderance of the evidence standard as a standard that should lead the trier of fact `to find that the existence of the contested fact is more probable than its nonexistence.' [56] And, [p]roof of falsity must be something more than a bare, unsupported opinion that the complaining witness is lying about certain events. Purported false allegations require some independent factual basis of falsity in order to be admissible in evidence. [57] Although there is a substantial concern with protecting defendants' fair trial rights, and it is often difficult to prove that prior accusations are false, we conclude that Miller 's middle-ground preponderance of the evidence standard sufficiently balances the defendant's fair trial rights with the victim's right of privacy. Applying Miller here, Abbott demonstrated, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the allegations were made and were false through the evidence generated in connection with the Colorado police investigation. Also, Tracy kept a diary regarding the victim's other allegations and there was evidence that both Tracy and David had represented that they did not believe the victim's other allegations. Although this evidence is prejudicial against the victim, we conclude that the probative value of the evidence outweighs the prejudice because evidence of prior false allegations is critical to Abbott's presenting a defense and receiving a fair trial. Thus, we conclude that the district court committed plain error by denying Abbott's request to admit prior false allegations.