Scott E. v. State

I concur in the judgment reversing the trial court’s judgment but write separately because I see a number of other reasons to reverse in addition to those stated in the majority opinion and because I think that my writing this opinion might in some way assuage the great, if unintended, harm that was inflicted by the State upon Scott E., who, if it were not for the present ruling of this court, would be tragically branded for life as a sex offender.

The State charged Scott with three sex crimes. These crimes, violations of our statutory criminal law, namely, NRS 201.230, are commonly known as “…