sprowson kidnapping case

Here is an example when a defendant goes to to trial on kidnapping a 16 year old, and even represents himself!, Melvyn Sprowsen, video1, video2, video3, video4, video5. See videos below. His appeal documents: brief, opposition, reply to opposition, final order. and and everything else including transcripts . Below, further Kidnapping arguments. Also, his victim Jaysenia Torres :

Additional analysis based on the above : nrs 200.310

" and a person who leads, takes, entices, or carries away or detains any minor with the intent to keep, imprison, or confine the minor from his or her parents, guardians, or any other person having lawful custody of the minor."

If involuntary, then standard kidnapping applies, so if voluntary as a "runaway" then the state says its not relevant as a runaway because the minor cannot consent.

Prosecutor says, : ... three is no consent to this crime", exactly where in the statute where it says that?

Well here is a clear example how the state is committing fraud in plain sight of the defendant, especially because he is representing himself and has not a clue how a statute works. Until I studied the law, I would have missed the following as well, and quite simply, cost me my life.

This is the best example why its takes years to understand law for a proper defense.

The relevant transcript :

From the above document page 3085, transcript page 104 :

Here the state says, "In the kidnapping statue, it says that a person under the age of 18 cannot consent to the crime of kidnapping, ...". Oh really? Again, where in the statute does it say that? then:

Unbelievable!! The state call out nrs 203.50 section 2, There is no 203.50!! this is no typo, it is plain fraud right in front of the defendant and he has no clue why the state says "it a major element of the case"!! He has "no problem with it"! Just that alone he threw out his whole defense that the girl's runaway status is irrelevant!

So now the state proceeds to invent law and add it to the jury instructions!

The court knows this is total fraud because below the court keeps asking him, more than once, if he has any objection, to make sure the court has made a clear unambiguous record that the "addition" was clearly approved by a "self representing fool as a client"!.

Not a clue, thats why he basically deserves a life sentence because of his self representation and total lack of knowledge of what's going on right in front of him! They are saying to him : "hey look we are going to make putting you in prison even easier; we are going to add, right in front of you, a totally fraudulent law that totally eliminates your defense, and you are so blind we can rely on that so you will never know even after living the rest of your life in custody.".

Look at the face of the guy in the second video, his facial expression matches exactly what's going on!

Damn lucky I plead guilty; my fictitious charge is openly admitted as a defect!, because that is also an admission they were going to do the exactly the same thing to me, and I would, like the defendant, have no clue I would be fooled in plain sight!

He is soooo dumb he says he is "familiar with the issue" from the pretrial discussion above. The court keeps making sure he knows the fraud is happening right in front of him!

This repetition is important on appeal if the defendant actually realized the fraud and would put blame on the court for accepting the fraud.

Actually it might not be fraud because he was warned in his Farretta hearing about self-representation especially because of the complexity of law, and here is the ultimate and perfect example that he waived fraud, because a competent attorney would be found substantially ineffective for not objecting to such fraud.

Here again, right in front of the jury, the court asks him one more time! Where he could argue the blatant fraud! So clueless, so for sure he goes to prison for total ignorance.

I like how the court says "inadvertently", that genius!, Because first state and the court show the law correctly as written and argued by the state's first closing argument. Now with the fraud added, the state can focus on removing his defense entirely! Well done! And...... too late, he cannot rebut the argument!

Regarding intent : Essentially intent conflicts with consent. Then it must considered contributory delinquency (the runaway's contribution to delinquency, by definition). NRS 201.110 , a misdemeanor.

Another analysis : on a scale 1-100, if intent is over 50% then its felony category A, if intent is less tan 50 % then its contributory, misdemeanor. Basically its binary flipping : from felony category A all the way to misdemeanor over a 50% pivot line.

And thats the absurdity of Nevada's broad (parental) kidnapping statute!

Note, 16 is the age of concent in Nevada : "NRS 200.364 Definitions. As used in NRS 200.364 to 200.3788, inclusive, unless the context otherwise requires:

10. “Statutory sexual seduction” means ordinary sexual intercourse, anal intercourse or sexual penetration committed by a person 18 years of age or older with a person who is 14 or 15 years of age and who is at least 4 years younger than the perpetrator."