## Facts

- Vernon Summitt was indicted on three counts of sexual assault involving a six-year-old child.
- Before trial, the district court dismissed one count (sexual intercourse) based on the State’s failure to preserve evidence.
- At trial on the remaining counts (cunnilingus and fellatio), Summitt sought to introduce evidence that the child had experienced a prior sexual episode about two years earlier in the same trailer park.
- The proffered evidence described acts similar to the charged conduct and involved the same child and a nine-year-old friend who also testified in the case.
- Summitt offered the evidence to show the child had an independent source of knowledge about the sexual acts alleged, not to attack her chastity or general credibility.
- The district court excluded the evidence under Nevada’s rape shield statute, NRS 50.090, construing it as a categorical bar.
- The jury convicted Summitt on the two remaining sexual assault counts.

## Issues

1. Whether NRS 50.090 bars evidence of a child victim’s prior sexual experience when offered to show an alternative source of the child’s knowledge of the specific sexual acts alleged, rather than to attack credibility through sexual-history character evidence.

## Decision

- The Nevada Supreme Court reversed the convictions and remanded for a new trial.
- The court held that NRS 50.090 does not prohibit evidence of a child victim’s prior sexual experience when offered to show the source of the child’s knowledge of the sexual acts at issue.
- The district court erred by treating the rape shield statute as a blanket exclusion and by preventing Summitt from presenting the evidence for that limited, non-character purpose.

## Legal Principles

- Rape shield statutes are aimed at preventing unfair attacks on a complainant’s character and credibility based on prior sexual conduct, not at excluding all prior sexual-conduct evidence for every purpose.
- Evidence of prior sexual experiences may be admissible when relevant to a non-character purpose, including showing an alternative source of a child victim’s sexual knowledge that bears on the reliability and interpretation of the child’s testimony about the charged acts.
- Statutes restricting sexual-history evidence should be construed in light of their text and purpose, and to avoid applications that impair a defendant’s due process right to present relevant defense evidence.

## Conclusion

Because the excluded evidence was offered to show an alternative source of the child’s knowledge of the alleged sexual acts rather than to attack her character, the rape shield statute did not apply as a categorical bar; the erroneous exclusion required reversal and a new trial.


Summitt v. State, 697 P.2d 1374 (Nev. 1985)