# Braunstein v. State

> Nevada Supreme Court · February 13, 2002 · 118 Nev. 68

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9788902

## Case

- **Full name:** STEVEN SAMUEL BRAUNSTEIN AKA STEVEN SAMUEL JALBERT, Appellant, v. THE STATE OF NEVADA, Respondent
- **Court:** Nevada Supreme Court
- **Decided:** February 13, 2002
- **Citations:** 118 Nev. 68; 118 Nev. Adv. Rep. 8; 40 P.3d 413; 2002 Nev. LEXIS 8
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Maupin
- **Judges:** Agosti, Maupin, Rose, Shearing, Leavitt, Becker, Young
- **Cited by:** 48 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9788902

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- observing that the majority “strips yet another procedural safeguard” from anyone accused of child sexual assault and “reverses a decade of precedent in the process” by concluding that the district court’s failure to hold a trustworthiness hearing is not grounds for automatic …
- stating that decision whether to admit prior bad act evidence is discretionary and will not be reversed absent a manifest abuse of 3 discretion
- explaining that language in NRS 201.230 makes “crimes of sexual assault and lewdness . . . mutually exclusive and convictions for both based upon a single act cannot stand”
- stating that "prior acts that are remote in time and involve conduct different from the charged conduct" are generally inadmissible (emphasis added)
- explaining that uncharged acts of sexual misconduct were relevant to prove a common scheme or plan but irrelevant to prove the accused's intent

## Opinion text

Maupin, C. J.,
with whom Young, J., agrees,
concurring:
I agree that the judgments of conviction in this matter should be affirmed.
I disagree, however, that this court should overturn Findley v. State 1 and McMichael v. State 2 as authority for the proposition that evidence showing that an accused poses a propensity for sexual aberration may be relevant in prosecutions for sexual assault. In this, I believe that both cases formulate a rule that is consistent with the exceptions to the general rule of non-admissibility of “other crimes, wrongs or acts” under NRS 48.045(2) as proof of character.
19 Nev. 212, 214 , 577 P.2d 867, 868 (1978).
94 Nev. 184, 188 , 577 P.2d 398, 401 (1978), overruled on other grounds by Meador v. State, 101 Nev. 765 , 711 P.2d 852 (1985).

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9788902. Public record. Not legal advice.