Police executed a search warrant at John Rosky’s apartment as part of an investigation into the sexual assault of a 13-year-old girl. Two police officers eventually drove Rosky to a police substation for questioning but they did not formally arrest him or administer Miranda warnings. Police informed Rosky that his participation was voluntary and that he was free to leave at any time. At one point during the questioning, Rosky took a ten-minute break and went outside the police station unaccompanied by the detectives. The detectives used mild forms of deception and confronted Rosky with their belief that he was guilty. Approximately 1½ hours into the interview, Rosky admitted to a brief consensual act of sexual intercourse with the 13- year-old girl. Rosky was arrested after the interview and released on bail. However, Rosky failed to appear in court. Authorities eventually located him in Mexico and obtained extradition. At trial, Rosky moved to suppress his confession because the officers did not administer Miranda warnings and his statements were made involuntarily. The district court concluded that Miranda did not apply because the statements were elicited in a non-custodial setting and that Rosky made the statements voluntarily. The district court also admitted evidence that Rosky fondled and digitally penetrated a 12-year-old girl ten years earlier. The district court ruled that the prior bad act was admissible as part of a common scheme or plan and as modus operandi. Also at trial, the court instructed the jury on flight. Rosky was convicted of sexual assault and indecent exposure. Rosky appealed asserting that the district court committed reversible error by (1) denying his motion to suppress the statement he made to police, (2) admitting prior bad act testimony, and (3) instructing the jury on flight.
Peck, Jason, "Summary of Rosky v. State, 121 Nev. Adv. Op. No. 22" (2005). Nevada Supreme Court Summaries. 600.