Robinson v. State
| Decision Date | 28 September 1994 |
| Docket Number | No. 24349,24349 |
| Citation | 110 Nev. 1137,881 P.2d 667 |
| Parties | Termaine ROBINSON, Appellant, v. The STATE of Nevada, Respondent. |
| Court | Nevada Supreme Court |
Appellant Termaine Robinson was charged with statutory sexual assault of a fourteen-year-old female. Robinson, who was seventeen years old when the crime was committed, was certified under NRS 62.080 to be tried as an adult. At his trial, Robinson requested an instruction on a lesser-included offense, statutory sexual seduction, a violation of NRS 200.364(3). The trial court refused to give the instruction.
There is no question but that Robinson would be entitled to the requested instruction except for the fact that he was seventeen at the time that the crime was committed, and NRS 200.364(3) prohibits a "person 18 years of age or older " from having sexual intercourse with a "person under the age of 16 years." (Emphasis added.) The trial judge understandably reasoned that since Robinson was not "a person 18 years or older," he could not legally be convicted of sexual seduction. Since Robinson could not, under the literal reading of the statute, be convicted of the crime of statutory sexual seduction, the trial judge refused to give the requested instruction.
The question presented on this appeal is whether a minor who has been certified to stand trial as an adult on charges of sexual assault is entitled to an instruction on the lesser-included offense of statutory sexual seduction. We answer that question in the affirmative.
If Robinson had been a "real" adult criminal defendant (over eighteen), he would have had the benefit of a statutory sexual seduction instruction and might have been convicted of this lesser crime. As it is, Robinson is a synthetic adult criminal defendant (under eighteen), who has been unwillingly subjected to adult "criminal proceedings" by virtue of NRS 62.080. It simply is not fair to use the juvenile-to-adult certification statute to force Robinson out of the juvenile court and into the adult court, and yet at the same time to deny him an important benefit that would have been available to him if he had been the usual, over-eighteen adult criminal defendant. 1
Although the sexual seduction statute refers to sexual acts "committed by a person 18 years or older" against a "person under the age of 16," Robinson is a court-declared adult and is no longer a child in the eyes of the criminal law. See In the Matter of Seven Minors, 99 Nev. 427, 664 P.2d 947 (1983). 2 The fact that NRS 200.364(2) defines adult in terms of "a person 18 years or older" and does not specifically apply to a person certified to be an adult under NRS 62.080 should not place Robinson at this serious disadvantage. To consider Robinson as an adult "in the eyes of the law" and as a person who is competent to violate the sexual seduction statute is reasonable and does no violence to the meaning of the statute. If the district court is going to transmute the underaged Robinson into an adult, the court must at the same time turn him into an adult with the same advantages that would be available to an over-eighteen criminal defendant. 3 If the court were not in a position to give to this certified adult the same rights and privileges given to adult defendants, then it should not "certify the child for proper criminal proceedings." NRS 62.080. In summary, Robinson is entitled to the same instructions as other adults accused of the crime of sexual assault, because he was tried as an adult. The trial court erred when it refused to give the instruction on the lesser included-offense of statutory sexual seduction; accordingly, the judgment of conviction is reversed, and the case is remanded for a new trial.
I respectfully dissent from the majority opinion. The Nevada Legislature has defined statutory sexual seduction as a crime only applicable to persons over the age of eighteen. Robinson was seventeen at the time of the sexual attack. The majority concludes that "[t]o consider Robinson as an adult 'in the eyes of the law' and as a person who is competent to violate the sexual seduction statute is reasonable and does no violence to the meaning of the statute."
I could not disagree more fervently. Statutory sexual seduction is an age-based offense. The age parameters selected by the legislature and inserted into the definitional language of the statute are at the core of the criminal conduct. The only reason the majority opinion does no violence to the language of NRS 200.364(3) is because it neglects the language entirely. I am of the opinion that it is not the business of courts to look beyond the plain and unwavering meaning of statutory language.
The intent behind a "statutory rape" law is not to protect persons of tender years from sixteen- and seventeen-year-old attackers. Are we to see the incomprehensible, a boy of sixteen or seventeen years being convicted of statutory sexual seduction for assaulting one of his peers? The majority brings the unthinkable to fruition and creates law.
If this is not enough to shock the conscience, I point to another colossal flaw in the majority opinion. In accordance with Nevada's adult certification laws, the adult court system lacks jurisdiction to convict Robinson of statutory sexual seduction. Under NRS 62.080, a juvenile over the age of sixteen can only be certified to stand trial as an adult when charged with a crime that would be a felony if committed by an adult. 1 Statutory sexual seduction committed by a person under the age of twenty-one and over the age of eighteen (Robinson by the majority's rationale) is a gross misdemeanor. NRS 200.368(2). By its express terms, NRS 62.080 does not apply to statutory sexual seduction. Therefore, upon remand, the district court has no jurisdiction to prosecute Robinson for this lesser related offense. 2 As a general proposition, prosecuting a minor for a misdemeanor charge falls within the scope of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Barton v. State
...Benitez v. State, 111 Nev. 1363, 904 P.2d 1036 (1995). 14. See, e.g., Peck v. State, 116 Nev. 840, 7 P.3d 470 (2000); Robinson v. State, 110 Nev. 1137, 881 P.2d 667 (1994); Davis v. State, 110 Nev. 1107, 881 P.2d 657 (1994); Walker v. State, 110 Nev. 571, 876 P.2d 646 (1994); Hillis v. Stat......
-
Hazelwood v. Howell
...ultimately to the defendant alone." Parker v. State, 100 Nev. 264, 265, 679 P.2d 1271, 1272 (1984); see also Robinson v. State, 110 Nev. 1137, 1138, 881 P.2d 667, 668 (1994) (once a child is certified as an adult, he "is no longer a child in the eyes of the criminal law"). Further, Hazelwoo......
-
Fritsche v. Legrand
...as amended prior to Fritsche's 2007 to 2008 offenses.) The state supreme court dismissed prior contrary expressions in Robinson v. State, 881 P.2d 667 (Nev. 1994), as constituting dicta in a case that was decided before the court clarified the governing test for determining whether an offen......
-
Alotaibi v. State
...the issue of whether statutory sexual seduction is a lesser-included offense of sexual assault with a minor in Robinson v. State, 110 Nev. 1137, 1138, 881 P.2d 667, 668 (1994). We disagree. Though Robinson contains statements to the effect that statutory sexual seduction is a lesser-include......