Nordine v. State

596 P.2d 245, 95 Nev. 425, 1979 Nev. LEXIS 498
CourtNevada Supreme Court
DecidedJune 14, 1979
DocketNo. 10555
StatusPublished

This text of 596 P.2d 245 (Nordine v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Nevada Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Nordine v. State, 596 P.2d 245, 95 Nev. 425, 1979 Nev. LEXIS 498 (Neb. 1979).

Opinion

[426]*426OPINION

By the Court,

Thompson, J.:

Two errors are assigned. First, that the evidence is insufficient to support a conviction for sexual assault. Second, that the trial court should have permitted the defendant to introduce evidence that the victim first had sexual relations when she was 15 years old.

1. The testimony of the victim, if believed by the jury, would establish a sexual assault. Her testimony need not be corroborated in order for the conviction to stand. Henderson v. State, 95 Nev. 324, 594 P.2d 712 (1979). Thus, the first claim of error is without merit.

2. NRS 48.069 specifies the method to be utilized by an accused who desires to present evidence of previous sexual conduct of the victim to prove her consent to the sex act for which he is on trial, and grants to the trial court a discretion as to whether such evidence should be received.1 At trial, an issue was whether the victim had consented to sexual relations with the accused. Relying upon NRS 48.069 an affidavit was submitted to the court to establish that the victim first had sexual relations when 15 years old. Nothing more was related with regard to that episode, nor did the affidavit relate any information covering the following two years until the incident in issue which happened when the victim was 17 years old.

[427]*427The accused apparently contends that the district court was compelled to allow the jury the opportunity to infer from that single episode that the victim was sexually submissive and probably consented to the sex act in issue. It is apparent that the proffered evidence possessed only marginal relevance to the issue of consent and may, in the discretion of the court, have been viewed as substantially outweighed by the danger of prejudice, confusion of issues or of misleading the jury. NRS 48.035(1).2 The rejection of such evidence fell well within the discretion of the judge.

Affirmed.

Mowbray, C. J., and Gunderson, Manoukian, and Batjer, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Henderson v. State
594 P.2d 712 (Nevada Supreme Court, 1979)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
596 P.2d 245, 95 Nev. 425, 1979 Nev. LEXIS 498, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nordine-v-state-nev-1979.