Sophia Smith was convicted of exploiting 89-year-old businessman Cornelius Hoffmans, who she met at a charity event in 2016 when he was 83. Smith developed a close relationship with Hoffmans as his memory began deteriorating, ultimately convincing him to purchase a house for $300,000, enter into a domestic partnership, and give her access to his credit cards. Hoffmans believed their relationship would lead to marriage and become sexual, unaware that Smith identified as a lesbian and was dating others. The exploitation scheme unraveled when Hoffmans' sons filed a civil petition to gain control over his trust, leading to criminal charges against Smith for seven counts of elder exploitation, six counts of theft, and one count of credit card fraud.
The Nevada Supreme Court ruled that the statutory definition of elder exploitation allows only one count per victim, regardless of how many separate acts of exploitation occurred. As Justice Stiglich wrote, "we are thus, consistent with the rule of lenity, construe this statute in favor of Smith and hold that Smith's conduct constituted only a single violation of NRS 200.5099(3), as the unit of prosecution is one count per victim." The court found the statutory language ambiguous because the definition uses the word "any," which "could mean '(1) one; (2) one, some, or all regardless of quantity; (3) great, unmeasured, or unlimited in amount; (4) one or more; and (5) all.'"
Despite ruling in Smith's favor on the unit of prosecution issue, the court delivered a stinging rebuke of her trial tactics. "Although we conclude that it was therefore error for Smith to be charged—and convicted—of multiple counts of elder exploitation," Justice Stiglich wrote, "we are unable to say that the error was plain." The court explained that because the statutory scheme was ambiguous and required interpretation using the rule of lenity, "we cannot say that the unit of prosecution for elder exploitation was 'clear under current law.'"
Smith was originally convicted by a jury in Clark County after District Judge Carli Lynn Kierny presided over the trial. The case arose from a State investigation that began before civil litigation commenced, with Smith declining to meet with law enforcement at least twice before being charged. The civil proceedings ultimately settled, resulting in revocation of Smith's power of attorney, annulment of the domestic partnership, and transfer of Smith's property purchased with Hoffmans' funds to his sons Jim and Chuck.
The court harshly criticized the trial court's decision to admit evidence about Smith's alleged charity misconduct under the res gestae exception. Justice Stiglich wrote that "apart from the alleged misconduct occurring contemporaneously with her exploitation of Hoffmans, there is no relationship between the misconduct and the taking of money from Hoffmans." The State had introduced evidence that Smith used charitable funds for gambling and treated the charity like "another one of [Smith's] checking accounts," but the court found this evidence was not part of "the same temporal and physical circumstances" as the charged acts.
The court identified a second major error in the jury instructions, finding that the district court issued a prohibited mandatory presumption regarding undue influence. "The jury was twice instructed that a presumption of undue influence 'arises' upon a finding of the predicate facts," Justice Stiglich explained, adding that this "amounted to instructing it to accept the presumption." The court noted this violated criminal defendants' presumption of innocence by "allowing the jury to presume a defendant guilty of a crime upon a prima facie showing of undue influence by a quantum of proof less than beyond a reasonable doubt."
In ordering a new trial, the court emphasized that if the State proceeds, it may only charge Smith with a single count of elder exploitation consistent with the new ruling. The decision clarifies that elder exploitation is a continuing offense where "the statute of limitations does not start to run until the final exploitative act occurs." The ruling potentially impacts how prosecutors across Nevada approach elder exploitation cases involving multiple transactions with the same victim.