Maes v. Sheriff

I respectfully dissent.

Both NRS 200.366(1) and NRS 200.364(2), under which defendant was charged, are directed to forceable ‘‘sexual penetration.” 1 Thus, obviously aware of this, the State charged that defendant had committed “sexual penetration, to-wit: fellatio, by placing the penis of [the victim], against his will, in the mouth of said Defendant.” However, although the State totally failed to prove such sexual penetration as alleged, the defendant was bound over for trial on that charge, as well as on the charge of “lewdness with a minor” which, of course, the evidence amply justified.

Whe…