State v. Ali, 312 Neb. 975

In May 2012, defendant Lencho Ahmed Ali was accused and later convicted of first-degree sexual assault for penetrating the complaining witness, J.K., after she repeatedly said "no." Accounts conflicted about consent.
Two years earlier (2010) J.K. reported to police that an obstetrical physician touched her leg in a way she initially described as inappropriate during a prenatal exam; in later statements she said she was confused and came to view it as a normal procedure.
Defense sought to cross-examine J.K. about the 2010 report as evidence of a prior false accusation to impeach her credibility; the State moved in limine to exclude prior-report evidence under the rape-shield statute and relevance/prejudice rules.
The district court initially permitted limited inquiry but then reversed, barring questioning about the doctor incident on grounds that its probative value was minimal and it posed undue prejudice, confusion, and risk of a mini-trial.
On appeal, the Nebraska Supreme Court applied State v. Swindle’s three-part test for admitting evidence of alleged prior false accusations (accusation was made; accusation was false; probative value outweighs prejudice) and concluded defendant failed to satisfy the second and third prongs.
The court affirmed: J.K. never actually recanted that the touching occurred (only revised her perception), and the prior incident was too dissimilar and minimally probative compared to its danger of unfair prejudice and juror confusion.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court erred by prohibiting cross-examination about a prior allegation that a doctor touched the complaining witness during a prenatal exam	The State: the prior incident is not a false sexual-activity allegation, is minimally probative, and would create unfair prejudice/confusion; exclusion proper under rules and rape-shield policy	Ali: Swindle permits cross-examination about prior false rape allegations to impeach credibility; he established the prior report was made and that it was false and therefore admissible	Court affirmed exclusion. Under Swindle defendant showed the report was made but not that it was false, and the minimal probative value was outweighed by prejudice/confusion; no Confrontation Clause violation

State v. Swindle, 300 Neb. 734 (Neb. 2018) (adopted three-part test for admitting evidence of alleged prior false accusations of sexual assault)
State v. Abligo, 978 N.W.2d 42 (Neb. 2022) (discusses rape-shield statute and admissibility limits)
State v. Greer, 979 N.W.2d 101 (Neb. 2022) (interpretation of § 27-412’s scope)
Davis v. Alaska, 415 U.S. 308 (1974) (Confrontation Clause and the right to meaningful cross-examination)
Holmes v. South Carolina, 547 U.S. 319 (2006) (trial courts may exclude evidence when probative value is outweighed by risks of prejudice/confusion)
United States v. Scheffer, 523 U.S. 303 (1998) (rulemakers may exclude evidence without violating defendant’s constitutional rights)
State v. Boggs, 63 Ohio St. 3d 418 (Ohio 1992) (false accusation where no sexual activity falls outside rape-shield protection)
Miller v. State, 105 Nev. 497 (Nev. 1989) (prior fabricated accusations are highly probative of credibility)
Clinebell v. Commonwealth, 235 Va. 319 (Va. 1988) (recognizes cross-examination on prior false allegations may be necessary to test credibility)