138 P.3d 462 (2006) Thomas ABBOTT, a/k/a Thomas Edward Abbott, Appellant, v. The STATE of Nevada, Respondent. No. 44275. Supreme Court of Nevada. July 13, 2006. *464 Keith C. Brower and Gregory L. Denue, Las Vegas, for Appellant. George Chanos, Attorney General, Carson City; David J. Roger, District Attorney, and Bill A. Berrett and James Tufteland, Chief Deputy District Attorneys, Clark County, for Respondent. Before the Court En Banc. OPINION ROSE, C.J. Thomas Abbott was charged with two counts of lewdness with a minor under the age of fourteen, for allegedly fondling his girlfriend's nine-year-old daughter's vagina. Following a jury trial, Abbott was convicted of both counts and sentenced to two concurrent life sentences, with parole eligibility after ten years. The victim had previously made allegedly false allegations against Abbott, as well as against her father and schoolmates. The victim had also engaged in sexual behavior since she was four years old. Based on this, Abbott attempted to introduce evidence of the prior false allegations and asked the district court for an independent psychological evaluation. The district court denied both requests. Abbott challenges those decisions on appeal.[1] Because of the nature of Abbott's claims, we have occasion to address three of our previous decisions in sexual assault cases to examine whether these decisions properly strike the delicate balance between a criminal defendant's fair trial rights and a victim-witness's privacy. First, in State v. District Court (Romano),[2] we announced a revised and more restrictive standard than had previously existed under Koerschner v. State[3] for when the district court may order an independent psychological evaluation of a victim. We conclude that Romano impermissibly restricts a defendant's access to an independent psychological examination of an alleged victim-witness, and we overrule Romano and reinstate the test set forth in Koerschner. Second, in Chapman v. State,[4] we stated that the clinical forensic interviewer who interviews the victim is not an expert for the purposes of Koerschner. We conclude that *465 Chapman incorrectly announced a blanket rule, and we clarify Chapman's holding. When the clinical forensic interviewer analyzes, and not merely recites, the facts of the interview, and/or states whether there was evidence that the victim was coached or was biased against the defendant, the clinical forensic interviewer will be deemed an expert witness for purposes of applying the Koerschner rule. Applying the above principles to the instant case, we conclude that Abbott was entitled to an independent psychological examination of the victim. Third, the test for whether prior false allegations of sexual assault may be introduced is set forth in Miller v. State.[5] We conclude that the Miller standard is appropriate, and we decline to alter it. However, we conclude that, in the instant case, the district court abused its discretion by excluding evidence of prior false allegations. We conclude that the above errors require reversal of Abbott's conviction and remand for a new trial. FACTS Abbott and his girlfriend, Tracy, met while working together in Las Vegas, Nevada. When Abbott and Tracy began dating, …
Original document ES
