Document Type

Case Summary

Publication Date

1-1-2003

Case Synopsis

T.R., a fourteen-year-old boy at the time of the incident, was charged with sodomy against a four-year-old boy, forcing the boy to orally copulate him, and orally copulating the boy. An evidentiary hearing was conducted by a district court hearing master who concluded that there was clear and convincing evidence T.R. sodomized the four-year-old boy, and that he forced the four-year-old boy to orally copulate him. The district court agreed with the hearing master, entered an order with the hearing master’s findings, and dismissed the remaining charge. T.R. moved for a rehearing based on inadmissible and unreliable hearsay statements, which the hearing master heard before rendering his decision. The Juvenile Probation Department prepared an evaluation report concerning T.R. It recommended a correctional program, submission to statutory community notification requirements, and a hearing when T.R. turns twenty-one. The hearing will determine if T.R. has successfully rehabilitated himself, or if he still poses a threat to society and should be required to comply with adult sex offender registration and notification statutes. T.R. filed a motion to strike the recommendation that he comply with community notification standards. T.R. received a rehearing on the adjudication. The district court upheld the hearing master’s decision regarding the sodomy, but held that the State failed to prove the oral copulation beyond a reasonable doubt. The district court adopted the Juvenile Probation Department’s report, and denied T.R.’s motion to strike mandatory compliance with community notification standards. T.R. appealed the district court’s decision, challenging his adjudication for delinquency as not being supported by evidence of sexual assault, and challenging NRS 62.590 (ultimately imposing adult notification standards on juvenile sex offenders) as being unconstitutionally vague.

Download

Share

COinS