Justices overturn kidnapping part of ex-teacher’s conviction
The Nevada Supreme Court this week threw out a kidnapping conviction against a former Clark County teacher behind bars for a sexual relationship with a student.
Defense attorneys for Jason Lofthouse, now 37, had argued that prosecutors overreached when they charged Lofthouse with kidnapping, because his 2015 relationship with a 17-year-old student was consensual.
In a unanimous 13-page decision from seven justices, the high court agreed.
“We conclude that the statutory language is not aimed broadly at any crime that merely involves a minor,” Justice Lidia Stiglich wrote. “Interpreting the language in (the kidnapping statute) to include any crime involving a minor would expand an already broad kidnapping statute beyond what is reasonable, leading to absurd results.”
Lofthouse, a former Rancho High School teacher, also was found guilty by a jury in early 2016 of 10 counts of sexual conduct with a student and sentenced to a maximum of 19 years in prison, the majority of that term being tied to his kidnapping conviction.
Deputy Public Defender William Waters, who argued the case on appeal in late 2018, called the high court’s Thursday decision “phenomenal,” adding that Lofthouse had been willing to take responsibility for his relationship with the teen.
The Supreme Court wrote that the sexual conduct law, amended in 2017, is aimed at the status of the teacher and “makes no exception for consensual sexual conduct, even though the student otherwise has the legal capacity to consent.”
One of Lofthouse’s former attorneys, Robert Draskovich, said Thursday’s order “signals the Supreme Court curbing the prosecutorial overreach that’s been occurring with the kidnapping statute.”
Waters had argued that Lofthouse, now housed at High Desert State Prison in Indian Springs, could not have committed kidnapping as a matter of law because the underlying crime was not against the teen herself, which the decision recognized. The decision means Lofthouse could soon be eligible for parole, Waters said.
In Nevada, the age of consent is
16, but state law makes an exception for school employees and volunteers and prohibits them from having sexual contact with pupils.
“Because the statute is indifferent regarding the student’s actual consent or the offender’s actual exploitation of the student, we conclude that it is the offender’s status that is the gravamen of the offense outlined” in the sexual conduct law, the high court decision states. Because the charge “is predominantly concerned with the appearance of impropriety rather than actual impropriety, we conclude its focus is on decency and morals rather than harm to a particular individual.”
The ruling could stretch into other cases, though the overall impact “rests in prosecutorial discretion,” Draskovich said.
Contact David Ferrara at dferrara@reviewjournal.com or 702-380-1039. Follow @randompoker on Twitter.