Opinion ID: 2621239
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Braunstein

Text: The majority of the issues presented in this appeal hinge on our recent decision in Braunstein v. State, addressing the admissibility of prior bad act evidence in prosecutions involving sexual misconduct. Prior to Braunstein, we followed a rule developed in McMichael v. State, [6] Findley v. State, [7] and their progeny. [8] McMichael held that evidence showing a defendant possesses a propensity for sexual aberration is relevant to the defendant's intent in a sex-crime prosecution. [9] Findley extended this principle to the effect that the probative value of such evidence outweighs the risk of prejudice as a matter of law. [10] The rule in McMichael and Findley remained in effect at the time of Richmond's trial. However, subsequent to Richmond's trial, we overruled these cases in Braunstein, stating: [W]e specifically ... repudiate the legal proposition stated in McMichael v. State that evidence showing an accused possesses a propensity for sexual aberration is relevant to the accused's intent. [11] In doing so, we held that the district court must analyze the proposed evidence under NRS 48.045(2). [12]