The defendant in the case appealed a jury conviction on four counts of lewd and lascivious acts toward children, three counts of sexual assault in the first degree, and two counts of sexual abuse of a minor. The Alaska Court of Appeals reversed all the convictions and remanded for a retrial. The court found that the alleged victim's prior consistent statements, which had been offered before she testified at the trial, were not properly admissible. The court's analysis of prior consistent statements marked a departure from common law by holding that prior consistent statements made after a motive to testify false arises are not subject to automatic exclusion. The Nitz court correctly observed that child abuse victims are less than ideal witnesses due to their immaturity and propensity to become confused. Further, it applied a result-oriented exception to the generally understood notion that prior consistent statements must predate the motive to fabricate. Following an interpretation of the prompt complaint doctrine in Alaska under Nitz, an amendment to Alaska's Rules of Evidence is suggested that recommends a limited child hearsay exception for prompt complaints. 167 references.