by Kiana DelGrosso
THE STATE OF NEVADA, Appellant, vs. DWIGHT CONRAD SOLANDER, Respondent. THE STATE OF NEVADA, Appellant, vs. JANET SOLANDER, Respondent.
Mr. and Mrs. Solander were charged with child abuse, endangerment, and sexual assault of their three foster daughters. Each of the girls testified that they were catheterized when punished for urinary incontinence, or “wetting the bed”. This punishment was enforced with the threat of genital mutilation if they did not cooperate. The dispute of this case was the legally definition of the terms sexual assault and sexual penetration. The Solander’s believed that they should not be charged of sexual assault because if the children had been catheterized, there was no sexual motivation or intention. The court, jury, and State included definitions of each that are found under NRS 200.366 for sexual assault and NRS 200.364 for sexual penetration. Neither of these definitions involve there being any sexual intent for their actions thus dismissing the Solander’s argument.
The Solander’s then testified that since the literal definitions of sexual assault and sexual penetration do not include sexual intent, then any medical staff member could be charged with either when they must act under medical emergencies. Pointed out in NRS 200.364 amendment, sexual penetration would not be applied in cases of medical purposes. Mr. and Mrs. Solander state that they had used the catheter for medical purposes but in earlier statements from the foster children that usage of a catheter was meant for punishment not medical purposes, dismissing the Solander’s second argument. The order of judgment was reversed and the district court is to remand this case.
State v. Solander, No. 67710, No. 67711, SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA, 2016 Nev. LEXIS 330, April 19, 2016, Filed
Citation: 2016 Nev. LEXIS 330. LexisNexis Academic. Web. Date Accessed: 2016/05/24.