Sheriff v. Dearing
Opinions
OPINION
By the Court,
Respondent was charged, by indictment, with lewdness with a minor, a felony under NRS 201.230. The district court dismissed the charges in pretrial habeas proceedings, and the State appeals.
The testimony adduced before the grand jury reflects, and the indictment so charges, that respondent’s lewdness was to engage in an act of cunnilingus on the 10-year-old prosecuting witness. Such act has been held to be encompassed in the definition of an infamous crime against nature, State v. Townsend, [256]*25671 A.2d 517 (Me. 1950), cf. In re Benites, 37 Nev. 145, 140 P. 436 (1914), and is specifically excluded from our lewdness statute.1 We cannot fault the district judge for granting habeas relief. See Martin v. Sheriff, 88 Nev. 303, 496 P.2d 754 (1972). We therefore affirm Judge Babcock’s ruling, without prejudice to the State’s proceeding under the proper statute.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
510 P.2d 874 (Sheriff v. Dearing) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.