an abuse of discretion. Alternatively, the core of this case is a unique question explored by few courts—this one not among them—namely, what remedies are available to a district court when a complaining witness refuses to submit to a psychological evaluation. This was the. pointed question the Court of Appeals attempted to answer and, more importantly, the issue squarely presented by the petition for review this court accepted. I would answer this question, although admittedly in an unexpected manner. The trial court abused its discretion by failing to provide a legal basis for its ruling and disqualifying K.S. from testifying. The majority suggests the State must shoulder the blame for the district court’s failure to specify a singular reason for its decision and for (2011) (<HOLDING>). Further, the State’s argument regarding the
holding that trial court clearly abuses its discretion if it reaches decision so arbitrary and unreasonable as to amount to clear and prejudicial error of law recognizing that we review a trial courts jury instruc tions for abuse of discretion and that a district court abuses its discretion when it makes an error of law internal quotation marks omitted holding a court abuses its discretion when it commits an error of law holding that a court abuses its discretion by making clear errors of judgment holding that sentencing court abuses its discretion by committing a clear error of judgment