In Nunn v. State, 845 P.2d 435 (Alaska App. 1993) the victim conceded that she had accused the defendant of criminal activity during a police interview, but she insisted that those accusations had been false. The Court held that the trial judge had properly allowed the State to play the tape of the victim's interview with the police: One of the critical issues facing the jury was whether to credit the victim's trial testimony or her conflicting prior statements. Had the victim been lying when she accused Nunn of sexually abusing her, or was the victim lying when she testified that no sexual abuse had occurred? Here, a videotape preserved the victim's demeanor as she told the police investigator about the sexual abuse in an interview that was held only a few days after the victim first reported the abuse to her camp counselor. The trial judge could reasonably conclude that, because the videotape displayed the victim's demeanor, the tape had substantial probative value beyond the mere words recorded on it. The trial court therefore did not abuse its discretion when it decided to allow the playing of the videotape. (Nunn, 845 P.2d at 440-41.)