This case involves allegations regarding fraudulent use of a credit card and identity theft. Appellant Michael Jezdik (“Jezdik”) and the victim in this case, Anna Behran (“Behran”), met in Las Vegas in early 1997. They enjoyed a brief romantic relationship but soon parted ways. Approximately three years later, however, Jezdik and Behran rekindled their friendship. Behran told Jezdik that she wanted to purchase a home but did not know how to do so. Jezdik offered to help Behran complete an online mortgage application at his residence. Behran agreed. Throughout the mortgage applicatiosn process, Jezdik acquired access to Behran’s social security number and other confidential information. Approximately one month after Jezdik assisted Behran with her mortgage application, Citibank received an online application for a MasterCard naming Behran as the primary cardholder and Jezdik as the secondary cardholder. As the primary cardholder, the credit card application required Behran’s social security number and date of birth. The application, however, provided Jezdik’s address and stated that Behran was employed by Southwest Advertising, Jezdik’s employer. At trial, Behran denied any responsibility for the credit card application. She also testified that she never authorized Jezdik to use her personal information to apply for a credit card, never used Jezdik’s address to receive mail, and never worked for Southwest Advertising. Citibank approved the application and sent two cards to Jezdik’s address. Citibank’s statements went unpaid. Upon discovering the credit card account in her name, Behran testified that she directed Citibank to close the account. As part of the ensuing fraud investigation, Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department Detective John Woosnam (“Woosnam”) contacted Citibank and learned that Citibank lost money on the account. Woosnam obtained copies of three credit card receipts and billing statements revealing seventeen purchases made during a two-week period. At trial, Woosnam made a lay comparison of Jezdik’s signature on a copy of a voluntary statement with the signature on the Citibank receipts. While not an expert, Woosnam testified that in his opinion, the signatures were the same.2 At trial, Jezdik theorized that Behran opened the credit card account and used his address and computer to complete the application in his absence. Jezdik testified that he and Behran had renewed their romantic relationship and that Behran had complete access to his residence. Additionally, Jezdik testified that he and Behran were indeed coworkers at Southwest Advertising. In an attempt to establish Jezdik’s credibility and good character, Jezdik’s attorney asked him during direct examination “Have you ever been accused of anything prior to these current charges?”3 Jezdik answered “No.” Later, in the jury’s absence, the State argued that Jezdik’s “no accusation” testimony “opened the door” to specific rebuttal evidence regarding misconduct similar to that alleged in this case.4 The district court agreed with the state and allowed two rebuttal witnesses to testify. A Detective Olewinski testified regarding an unrelated ongoing investigation of Jezdik. The other witness was Jezdik’s father-in-law, who testified that Jezdik once admitted to using his personal information to open a credit card account without his knowledge or consent. The jury found Jezdik guilty on one count of obtaining and using the personal identification of another, three counts of fraudulent use of a credit card and two counts of burglary. Jezdik appealed. On appeal Jezdik contends that Detective Olewinski’s and his father-in-law’s testimony constitutes improper character evidence under NRS 48.045 and inappropriate impeachment evidence under NRS 50.085. The State argues, however, that neither NRS 48.045 nor NRS 50.085 applies because the State elicited the testimony to rebut Jezdik’s own testimony on direct examination.
Reeve, Brian, "Summary of Jezdik v. State, 121 Nev. Adv. Op. 15" (2005). Nevada Supreme Court Summaries. 621.