Court Opinion

ID: 9564278
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 18:57:04.992836+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:18:19.691462
License: Public Domain

Manoukian, J.,
concurring:
Although I concur in the majority opinion, I have concern with the admissibility of the testimony of Bernadette and Beverly. Here, the trial court improperly extended our previous holdings regarding prior acts of misconduct and the use of such evidence against a defendant. Not only did these witnesses testify as to the acts directly involving Denise, they were allowed to testify as to how appellant contacted them and how they were involved in sexual activities with appellant’s adult friends. *434The trial court reasoned that this testimony demonstrated a scheme indicating an “intent of the [appellant] to seduce [the victim] against her will.” In allowing this testimony, the district court relied upon Findley v. State, 94 Nev. 212, 577 P.2d 867 (1978), and McMichael v. State, 94 Nev. 184, 577 P.2d 398 (1978). This was error.
This court has held that evidence of prior bad acts may be admitted to prove the crime charged when it tends to establish intent or “a common scheme or plan embracing the commission of two or more crimes so related to each other that proof of one tends to establish the others . . . .” Nester v. State, 75 Nev. 41, 46, 334 P.2d 524, 527 (1959). Here, there were many similarities in the circumstances surrounding the manner in which appellant first met Bernadette and Beverly and the manner in which he became acquainted with Denise. This included his promise of a monetary remuneration for modeling and the representation that he would complete a portfolio for each of the girls. Beyond those similarities, however, the situations differ. Bernadette and Beverly stated that they had sex with appellant and his friends. There was no real suggestion that these acts were involuntary.
In previous cases we have allowed the testimony of witnesses evidencing the prior sexual misconduct of a defendant. This has involved similar acts by the defendant either with the present victim or with persons other than the complaining witness. See Simpson v. State, 94 Nev. 760, 587 P.2d 1319 (1978); Willett v. State, 94 Nev. 620, 584 P.2d 684 (1978); Findley v. State, 94 Nev. 212, 577 P.2d 867 (1978); McMichael v. State, 94 Nev. 184, 577 P.2d 398 (1978); Allan v. State, 92 Nev. 318, 549 P.2d 1402 (1976). I believe the fact that Beverly and Bernadette willingly engaged in sexual activities with appellant and other men is irrelevant toward proving the instant nonconsen-sual acts involving Denise. See Lovely v. United States, 169 F.2d 386 (4th Cir. 1948) (in rape prosecution, where intercourse was not at issue and only issue was that of consent, evidence that accused committed rape several weeks prior to the alleged crime was inadmissible); State v. Irving, 601 P.2d 954 (1979) (detailed evidence of defendant’s attempted rape of another woman on previous occasion was inadmissible as substantive evidence to corroborate the victim’s claims of defendant’s use of force and her lack of consent). Cf. Oliphant v. Koehler, 594 F.2d 547 (6th Cir. 1979) (circumstances surrounding prior nonconsensual acts were relevant toward issue of consent in instant case).
Nevertheless, I believe that the testimony offered by Beverly and Bernadette simply verbalized the documentary evidence of *435which appellant complains and which the majority has concluded does not constitute error. Such evidence is therefore cumulative. Moreover, even though here, the admission of the prior acts of sexual conduct under the “liberal judicial attitude” in admitting the prior acts of sexual conduct, McMichael v. State, 94 Nev. at 189, 577 P.2d at 401, constituted error, such error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt in view of the other overwhelming evidence of guilt. Bushnell v. State, 95 Nev. 570, 573-74, 599 P.2d 1038, 1040-41 (1979).