Jefferson (Gregory) v. State ( 2015 )


Menu:
  •                  review the court's application of the law to those facts de novo.   Lader v.
    Warden, 
    121 Nev. 682
    , 686, 
    120 P.3d 1164
    , 1166 (2005).
    Jefferson argues that counsel was ineffective for failing to
    request a jury instruction on the theory that reasonable mistake of age is a
    defense to statutory sexual seduction (NRS 200.364(6))." Jefferson has
    failed to demonstrate deficiency or prejudice. As Jefferson conceded
    below, this court has held that a reasonable mistake as to the victim's age
    is not a defense to statutory sexual seduction.   See Jenkins v. State, 
    110 Nev. 865
    , 870-71, 
    877 P.2d 1063
    , 1067 (1994). Further, while the defense
    is entitled to a jury instruction on its theory of defense, that theory must
    be supported by some evidence and it must be an accurate statement of
    law.   McCraney v. State, 
    110 Nev. 250
    , 255, 
    871 P.2d 922
    , 925 (1994);
    Vallery v. State, 
    118 Nev. 357
    , 372, 
    46 P.3d 66
    , 77 (2002). Here, it was not
    the theory of defense (that the State failed to meet its burden of proof),
    Jefferson identifies no evidence that would support such a theory, and it is
    not an accurate statement of law. It would therefore have been a futile
    request, and counsel was not objectively unreasonable in not making it.
    See Ennis v. State,    
    122 Nev. 694
    , 706, 
    137 P.3d 1095
    , 1103 (2006).
    Moreover, Jefferson has failed to demonstrate a reasonable probability of a
    different outcome at trial where he was also convicted of the alternate,
    'Jefferson's fast track statement refers to a charge of "Statutory
    Sexual Assault on a Minor." No such crime exists. Jefferson raised this
    claim below in the context of his convictions for statutory sexual seduction.
    We decline to address his claims to the extent that he is attempting to
    expand them on appeal to reach his convictions for sexual assault of a
    child under 16 years old. See Davis v. State, 
    107 Nev. 600
    , 606, 
    817 P.2d 1169
    , 1173 (1991), overruled on other grounds by Means, 120 Nev. at 1012-
    13, 103 P.3d at 33.
    SUPREME COURT
    OF
    NEVADA
    2
    (0) 1947A    e
    greater offenses of sexual assault of a child under 16 years. Accordingly,
    we conclude that the district court did not err in denying this claim, and
    we
    ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.
    , C.J.
    Hardesty
    J.
    —Cinkaltatrr
    Parraguirre
    Douglas
    cc: Hon. Stefany Miley, District Judge
    Terrence M. Jackson
    Attorney General/Carson City
    Clark County District Attorney
    Eighth District Court Clerk
    SUPREME COURT
    OF
    NEVADA
    3
    (0) 1947A    cep
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 67193

Filed Date: 11/13/2015

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/17/2021