Nevada Supreme Court in Las Vegas
LAS VEGAS – Even if it were true that comedian Bill Cosby forced a woman to masturbate him, it wouldn’t be sexual assault, the Nevada Supreme Court has ruled.
In answering a question from a federal judge presiding over a lawsuit by 10 women against Cosby, the court said last week that Nevada sexual-assault law only covers acts involving penetration.
“Given the statute’s plain meaning, we conclude that a person does not commit a sexual penetration, and therefore does not commit sexual assault, by forcing their penis into another’s hand,” Justice Lidia Stiglich wrote Feb. 12.
Cosby has long faced similar accusations by dozens of other women. One of America’s favorite fathers on television, Cosby spent time in a Pennsylvania prison before a conviction was overturned in 2021 by the state’s supreme court.
Civil lawsuits persist. Angela Leslie said in the late 1980s or early 1990s she was drugged by Cosby in his Las Vegas hotel room. He covered her hand in lotion then placed it around his penis, moving it in an act of forced masturbation, Leslie alleges.
Leslie, a former actress, joined other plaintiffs in a 2023 suit against Cosby filed by attorneys at Merson Law and Panish, Shea, Boyle, Ravipudi.
There are allegations of forced penetration of the women, but none by Leslie. In November 2024, a Nevada federal judge asked the state Supreme Court to decide whether Cosby’s alleged actions on her amounted to sexual assault, as “it appears that there is no controlling precedent…”
Cosby’s defense received support from the Nevada Attorneys for Criminal Justice, which argued the Legislature intentionally excluded masturbation from its definitions of sexual assault and sexual penetration.
“An intrusion and a touch become synonymous when talking about a body part that is not an opening, and because a sexual penetration does not require a sexual intent Leslie’s reading of the statute would mean that a touching of any part of a person’s body (even without sexual intent) would count as sexual penetration,” NCAJ wrote.
“Therefore, under Leslie’s interpretation a simple battery would become a sexual assault – an absurd result which would be unconstitutionally vague.”
Leslie’s lawyers argued “sexual penetration” is defined by the law to include “any intrusion, however slight, of any part of a person’s body.”
“Where alternative interpretations of a statute are possible, the interpretation that leads to a reasonable result should be accepted, with consideration of the legislature’s goal in enacting the law,” her lawyers wrote.
