Court Opinion

ID: 9627983
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 09:02:23.914939+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:06:54.556267
License: Public Domain

Rose, J.,
with whom Springer, J., joins,
dissenting:
The prosecution presented a runaway teenager as a virgin whom appellant sexually assaulted, causing a hymenal tear. The jury was shown a photograph of the tear that had been taken with a sophisticated medical camera. The examining physician stated *778that a penis could have caused this damage and that the injury is normally found in “somebody who has not been penetrated in the past.” Therefore, the issue of the victim’s virginity was placed in issue by the victim and the prosecution.
At the preliminary hearing, the victim testified that she had been sexually assaulted by “Uncle Jeff” when she was nine or ten years old and had filed a criminal charge against him in 1993. The defense attempted to introduce a police report that documented the incident, but the justice of the peace refused its admission or any further evidence of the prior sexual assault, other than the fact that it had occurred, because of the rape shield law.
Norman’s counsel represents that at trial he wanted to introduce the “Uncle Jeff” sexual assault to counter the victim’s claims of virginity, but was precluded by the district judge. Unfortunately, there is no record of this hearing or of the district judge’s ruling that refused to let in the “Uncle Jeff” evidence. However, Norman’s counsel attempted to question Nellie Miller, the mother of Donna Miller (who was engaged to Norman), regarding whether the victim had ever told Miller that she had been sexually assaulted. After Miller stated that the victim had told her that she had been sexually assaulted both by her stepfather and her mother’s friend, presumably “Uncle Jeff,” the prosecution objected, and an unreported conference was held at the bench. After the conference, Norman’s counsel asked Miller questions regarding whether the victim had told her that she had been subjected to verbal and physical abuse, but not sexual abuse, by her father, and no questions were asked regarding what the victim had told her about the sexual assault committed by “Uncle Jeff.” The logical inference is that the judge instructed Norman’s counsel that the victim’s sexual history was inadmissible pursuant to the rape shield law. This inference was bolstered by the fact that Norman’s counsel did not cross-examine the victim after the victim testified that she was a virgin, even though the victim had testified at the preliminary hearing that she had been sexually assaulted by “Uncle Jeff” when she was nine or ten years of age.
The result of all of this was that the jury was left with an untruth, based on the victim’s preliminary hearing testimony, that the victim had never been sexually penetrated, whether voluntarily or involuntarily, and had no independent knowledge of similar sexual acts. Furthermore, Norman was denied the opportunity to prove that the graphic hymenal tear shown to the jury in a photograph could well have been caused by “Uncle Jeff.” The prosecutor also argued to the jury that the victim had waived the *779protection of the rape shield law when just the opposite was apparently true.
This was a close case that hinged on the credibility of the accuser and the accused. There was no corroborating evidence other than the photo and the fact that both were at the apartment on the evening that the incident allegedly occurred. The victim testified that the attack took place right outside the bedroom of her friends and that she screamed repeatedly. However, the friends heard nothing that evening and were surprised when the victim told them the next morning that she had been raped. The male friend stated that when he went to bed, the victim was intoxicated and had been kissing him. Although this evidence was also initially disallowed by the district judge, it was eventually presented to the jury.
The case of Summitt v. State, 101 Nev. 159, 163, 697 P.2d 1374, 1377 (1985), is strikingly similar to this case, and I believe it mandates reversal. In Summitt, the defendant sought to introduce evidence that the six-year-old victim had been sexually assaulted previously in order to show that, despite her young age, the victim had independent knowledge of similar sexual acts. Id. at 163-66, 697 P.2d at 1375-77. The testimony was thus offered for the limited purpose of challenging her credibility by dispelling certain inferences related to her youth; the remaining evidence of guilt was not strong, and the accuracy and truthfulness of the victim’s testimony were key elements in the case against the defendant. Id. at 163-66, 697 P.2d at 1377. This court held that the district court’s exclusion of this testimony constituted reversible error requiring a new trial. Id. I find no fundamental distinction between Summitt and the case at bar.
Furthermore, the testimony regarding “Uncle Jeff’s” (and the stepfather’s) sexual assaults was admissible because it was used to show that somebody other than Johnson caused the damage, not to prove that the victim consented to the sexual activity. See Cox v. State, 102 Nev. 253, 256, 721 P.2d 358, 360 (1986) (NRS 48.069 applies only to cases in which evidence of prior sexual conduct is offered to prove that a victim consented to sexual activity). Furthermore, under this theory that “Uncle Jeff” or the stepfather caused the damage, the evidence was not precluded by NRS 50.090, because it was not offered to challenge the victim’s credibility.
However, the evidence was also admissible to challenge the victim’s credibility as a witness pursuant to NRS 50.090, which authorizes such a use if the witness has testified to such conduct. The victim testified at trial that she was a virgin. Therefore, Norman’s counsel should have been permitted to cross-examine *780the victim regarding her testimony at the preliminary hearing that she had been sexually assaulted by “Uncle Jeff.”
Accordingly, I would reverse this case and remand it to the district court for a new trial because important, reliable evidence that would have attacked the victim’s credibility was not presented to the jury.