Opinion ID: 2607617
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Joinder of the Cases

Text: Shannon next argues that it was prejudicial to join case C76901, in which Shannon was charged with two counts of lewdness with a minor upon child L, with case C74463 in which Shannon was charged with eleven counts of sexual crimes involving Minor A. Shannon asserts that the two cases are not proper for joinder because they fail to meet the criteria set forth in NRS 173.115 which states that: Two or more offenses may be charged in the same indictment or information in a separate count for each offense if the offenses charged, whether felonies or misdemeanors or both, are: (1) Based on the same act or transactions; or (2) Based on two or more acts or transactions connected together or constituting parts of a common scheme or plan. Shannon asserts that the incidents with Minor A and Minor L are distinct in nature and time. Shannon also claims that the act between him and Minor L was an act of horseplay but when joined with Minor A's eleven counts of sexual crimes created sufficient prejudice to obtain a conviction in Minor L's case. These acts, although different in time and place, are part of a common scheme or plan devised by Shannon. This is evident by the identical modus operandi utilized with each child. Both boys were members of Shannon's Canoe Club. Both boys were victims of sexual crimes perpetrated by Shannon while on canoe outings. Both boys were of the same age group. Given the closeness of the acts, the similar circumstances, and the same modus operandi, the criterion of a common scheme or plan was sufficiently satisfied. Joinder is within the discretion of the trial court and will not be reversed absent an abuse of that discretion. See Lovell v. State, 92 Nev. 128, 546 P.2d 1301 (1976). The joinder of these two cases was properly within the trial court's discretion.