The Nevada Supreme Court issued an opinion Wednesday in *William Cosby Jr. v. Angela Leslie*, addressing a certified question from the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada regarding the interpretation of the state's sexual assault statute.
The case, designated No. 89650, centers on whether forced masturbation without genital or anal intrusion constitutes sexual assault under Nevada Revised Statutes 200.366. The certified question was submitted by District Judge Gloria M. Navarro under Nevada Rule of Appellate Procedure 5, which allows federal courts to seek clarification on state law matters from the Nevada Supreme Court.
The opinion was authored by Justice Kristina Pickering and decided by the full court sitting en banc. According to the court record, the case involves William Cosby Jr. as the appellant and Angela Leslie as the respondent in what appears to be civil litigation that required clarification of Nevada's criminal sexual assault statute for purposes of the federal proceedings.
Nevada's sexual assault statute, NRS 200.366, defines the crime as subjecting another person to sexual penetration against their will or under conditions where the person knows or should know the victim is mentally or physically incapable of resisting or understanding the nature of the conduct. The central legal question presented to the Nevada Supreme Court was whether conduct involving forced masturbation, absent genital or anal intrusion, falls within the statutory definition of sexual assault.
Certified questions are procedural mechanisms that allow federal courts to obtain authoritative interpretations of state law from state supreme courts when the law is unclear or unsettled. This process ensures that federal courts apply state law correctly in cases where state law claims are involved or where state law interpretations could affect federal proceedings.
The case attracted attention from the Nevada Attorneys for Criminal Justice, which filed an amicus curiae brief through Chief Deputy Public Defender Kristy S. Holston of Clark County. Amicus briefs allow interested parties who are not directly involved in the litigation to provide additional legal perspectives that may assist the court in reaching its decision.
Cosby Jr. was represented by attorneys from Wooldridge Law Injury Lawyers, including Nicholas Wooldridge of Las Vegas, and the Bonjean Law Group, with Jennifer Bonjean from Brooklyn, New York. Leslie was represented by a team from Panish, Shea, Ravipudi LLP, including Brian J. Panish, Rahul Ravipudi, and Robert Glassman from Las Vegas, along with attorneys from Merson Law, PLLC, including Jordan K. Merson, Jordan K. Rutsky, Nathan E. Werksman, and Alice A. Bohn from New York.
The involvement of both Nevada and out-of-state counsel suggests the case has implications beyond state boundaries and may involve complex jurisdictional issues. The presence of prominent civil litigation firms indicates this is likely a civil case seeking monetary damages rather than a criminal prosecution.
Certified questions typically arise in cases where federal courts need clarity on state law to properly adjudicate claims before them. In this instance, the federal district court apparently needed guidance on Nevada's sexual assault statute to resolve legal issues in the underlying case between Cosby Jr. and Leslie.
The Nevada Supreme Court's interpretation of NRS 200.366 in response to this certified question will establish binding precedent for how Nevada courts should interpret the sexual assault statute in similar factual situations. This precedent will guide both criminal prosecutors and civil attorneys in future cases involving allegations of forced masturbation and related conduct.
The ruling comes at a time when courts across the nation are grappling with evolving definitions of sexual assault and harassment in both criminal and civil contexts. State supreme courts play a crucial role in interpreting their respective sexual assault statutes, as these interpretations directly impact both criminal prosecutions and civil liability determinations.
The opinion represents the Nevada Supreme Court's authoritative interpretation of a key provision in the state's criminal code. While the court was answering a certified question in the context of civil litigation, the interpretation will apply equally to criminal cases involving similar factual allegations under NRS 200.366.
The certified question procedure demonstrates the collaborative relationship between federal and state courts in ensuring accurate application of state law. By seeking guidance from the Nevada Supreme Court, the federal district court avoided the risk of misinterpreting state law and ensured that the parties received a definitive ruling based on authoritative state law interpretation.
The case highlights the complexity of sexual assault law and the importance of precise statutory interpretation in cases involving serious allegations. The Nevada Supreme Court's answer to the certified question will provide clarity for future cases involving similar factual circumstances and statutory interpretation issues.