Court Opinion

ID: 9532178
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 04:18:54.385917+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:28:41.767167
License: Public Domain

Shearing, J.,
with whom Rose, J., joins,
concurring in part and dissenting in part:
I agree that the conviction for attempted sexual assault must be reversed because of the inappropriate pretrial charging process. However, I do not agree that Cipriano’s conviction for the crime of open and gross lewdness must be reversed. The majority holds that the testimony of the defendant’s daughter-in-law should not have been admitted because the behavior she described was not similar to the crime charged, and was therefore, highly prejudicial.
It is difficult to see how the conduct described cannot be seen as similar to that described by the victim. In both cases, the victims alleged that Cipriano used force and intimidation to gain sexual favors. In both cases, the victims alleged that Cipriano placed them in a position where they could not retreat. In both cases, the victims alleged that Cipriano kissed or attempted to kiss them, touched them on the breasts and touched them in the crotch area despite their attempts to fight him off. Both victims also alleged that Cipriano persisted in this behavior in the face of *544repeated requests to cease. The evidence supports a finding that Cipriano’s bad acts were part of a common scheme or plan and showed his deliberate intent to commit open and gross lewdness under NRS 48.045(2).
Had the daughter-in-law’s testimony been offered in the State’s case-in-chief, I would probably have agreed that it was more prejudicial than probative. However, the testimony was offered after Cipriano’s testimony that the victim in this case had attempted to seduce him, that he had never threatened violence to women, and that he had always been a gentleman around women. The State is prejudiced when the defendant may testify as to the accuser’s bad character and his good character, and the State may not rebut that testimony. The rules of evidence must be construed to be fair to both parties.
Apart from concluding that the daughter-in-law’s testimony was prejudicial and should not have been admitted, the majority also concludes that the evidence against Cipriano was not overwhelming and that therefore harmless error analysis is inappropriate. I disagree that the evidence was not overwhelming. In addition to the testimony of the victim, there was the testimony of the police officer who interviewed Cipriano, outlining and testifying to Cipriano’s admission to all the acts alleged by the victim. The police officer testified as follows:
Q And did he say why he had gone there?
A Yes, he said he wanted to get lucky.
Q And what did you reply?
A I asked him, “What does ‘get lucky’ mean?”
Q And did he answer you?
A Yes, he did. He said, “you know, she might let me fuck her.”
Q Did you ask him any of the details?
A Yes, I asked him what happened when he got there. He said when he arrived he tried some conversation, convincing conversation, and he said that he even tried to kiss her. He tried to get her clothes off of her, and he touched her breasts, her buttocks — or excuse me, her breasts and her vaginal area.
Q Did he tell you that he tried to get in her pants?
A Yes, he did, and he used that term exactly.
Q Did he ask you to do anything or as your investigation — did he ask you to do anything about it?
A At the termination of the interview he asked me not to tell his wife because she would be upset.
I believe that the jury would have found Cipriano guilty based upon his own admission and the victim’s testimony. Given the *545police officer’s testimony, Cipriano’s story that the victim in this case attempted to seduce him seems implausible in view of his admission concerning his purpose in going to the victim’s house.
The defendant’s conviction of the crime of open and gross lewdness should be affirmed.