Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Law Commons

Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Articles 1 - 30 of 326

Full-Text Articles in Law

White V. State Of Nevada, 135 Nev. Adv. Op. 67 (Dec. 26, 2019), Katrina Fadda Jan 2020

White V. State Of Nevada, 135 Nev. Adv. Op. 67 (Dec. 26, 2019), Katrina Fadda

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

No abstract provided.


High Desert State Prison V. Sanchez, 135 Nev., Adv. Op. 68 (Dec. 26, 2019), Jeff Garrett Jan 2020

High Desert State Prison V. Sanchez, 135 Nev., Adv. Op. 68 (Dec. 26, 2019), Jeff Garrett

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

NRS § 209.4465 does not allow for good time served to be credited for those who commit child lewdness. The Court held that in order for a violation to be a continuous crime, the statute must be explicitly label the crime as continuous. Here, Respondent’s time served had been properly calculated by the district court because Respondent’s violation was codified as a one-time offense and occurred before the 2007 amendment to NRS § 209.4465. The language of the violated statutes define attempted lewdness with a child to be a one-time offense and not a continuous offense. Furthermore, the ...


Anderson V. State, 135 Nev. Adv. Op. 56 (Nov. 27, 2019), Tayler Bingham Jan 2020

Anderson V. State, 135 Nev. Adv. Op. 56 (Nov. 27, 2019), Tayler Bingham

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court determined that (1) when the government relies on the forfeiture exception of the Confrontation Clause to introduce a witness’s out-of-court statements, the burden of proof the litigant must meet is that of preponderance of the evidence; and (2) that a trial court does not abuse its discretion in denying a motion to substitute counsel and thereby violate the Sixth Amendment right to counsel when the trial court holds a Young hearing for each motion and enough evidence indicates there is not a complete breakdown in the attorney-client relationship.


Poasa V. State, 135 Nev. Adv. Op. 57 (Nov. 27, 2019), Gillian Block Jan 2020

Poasa V. State, 135 Nev. Adv. Op. 57 (Nov. 27, 2019), Gillian Block

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court reaffirmed its holding in Kuykendall v. State, interpreting NRS 176.055(1) to require sentencing courts to award credit for time served in presentence confinement.


Cabrera V. State, 135 Nev. Adv. Op. 65 (Dec. 26, 2019), Trisha Delos Santos Jan 2020

Cabrera V. State, 135 Nev. Adv. Op. 65 (Dec. 26, 2019), Trisha Delos Santos

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court determined that the plain language of NRS § 194.010(8) cannot be interpreted to limit the duress defense with respect to crimes that are not punishable with death, regardless of the relationship between those crimes and another crime that is punishable with death.


Witter V. State, 135 Nev. Adv. Op. 73444 (Nov. 14, 2019), John Bays Nov 2019

Witter V. State, 135 Nev. Adv. Op. 73444 (Nov. 14, 2019), John Bays

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court determined that (1) a judgment of conviction containing a restitution provision must contain the specific amount of restitution required; (2) a judgment of conviction containing an indeterminate restitution provision is not a final judgement for purposes of appeal or for purposes of triggering the deadline for filing a habeas petition; and (3) the principle of finality requires that even when such an error is made, if the defendant treats the judgment as final by litigating, the defendant is estopped from later arguing that judgment was not final and that subsequent proceedings were null and void for lack of ...


Gathrite V. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 135 Nev. Adv. Op. 54 (Nov. 7, 2019), Skylar Arakawa-Pamphilon Nov 2019

Gathrite V. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 135 Nev. Adv. Op. 54 (Nov. 7, 2019), Skylar Arakawa-Pamphilon

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

For purposes of NRS 172.135(2), evidence that has been suppressed in justice court proceedings on a felony complaint is not “legal evidence,” and therefore, may not be presented to a grand jury. The Court will grant an exception to this rule if the suppression was reversed before the grand jury proceedings.


Newson V. State, 135 Nev. Adv. Op. 50 (Oct. 10, 2019), Richard Young Oct 2019

Newson V. State, 135 Nev. Adv. Op. 50 (Oct. 10, 2019), Richard Young

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court determined although the district court has broad discretion to settle jury instructions, the failure to instruct the jury on a defendant’s theory of a case that is supported by any evidence warrants reversal unless the error was harmless.


State Bd. Of Parole Comm’Rs V. Second Judicial Dist. Court, 135 Nev. Adv. Op. 53 (Oct. 24, 2019) (En Banc), Dallas Anselmo Oct 2019

State Bd. Of Parole Comm’Rs V. Second Judicial Dist. Court, 135 Nev. Adv. Op. 53 (Oct. 24, 2019) (En Banc), Dallas Anselmo

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court confronted several issues in this methodical decision. The Court addressed standing and discretionary review in the context of writ petitions. It next analyzes and determines the applicable version of a particular NRS section. Finally, the Court interprets the applicable version of the statute. The opinion culminates in the granting of a writ of mandamus petition for the Parole Board to correct an inaccurate application of law at the district court level.


Bowser V. State Of Nevada, 135 Nev. Adv. Op. 15 (May 16, 2019), Andrew Brown Sep 2019

Bowser V. State Of Nevada, 135 Nev. Adv. Op. 15 (May 16, 2019), Andrew Brown

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court overruled precedent which held that a presumption of vindictiveness applies when a judge imposes a longer sentence after a new trial.


Menendez-Cordero V. State, 135 Nev. Adv. Op. 29 (Jul 25, 2019), Nick Hagenkord Sep 2019

Menendez-Cordero V. State, 135 Nev. Adv. Op. 29 (Jul 25, 2019), Nick Hagenkord

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court concluded that (1) the empanelment of an anonymous jury does not, without actual prejudice, infringe on a defendant’s constitutional rights and the district court satisfied the abuse-of-discretion standard adopted; (2) the district court need not instruct a jury that is responsible for imposing a sentence in a first-degree murder case under NRS 175.552 about the effects of a deadly weapon enhancement; and (3) there was no abuse of discretion in the district court’s decision to admit Menendez-Cordero’s threats as consciousness-of-guilt evidence.


Hager V. State, 135 Nev. Adv. Op. 34 (Aug. 29, 2019), Brittney Lehtinen Sep 2019

Hager V. State, 135 Nev. Adv. Op. 34 (Aug. 29, 2019), Brittney Lehtinen

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court determined that (1) Defendants who successfully complete mental health specialty court diversion programs pursuant to NRS § 176A.250–265 are not “adjudicated mentally ill” under NRS § 202.360(2)(1); and (2) that the jury should have been instructed that under NRS § 202.360(1)(d), an “unlawful user” is someone who regularly uses substances over a period of time consistent with their possession of a firearm.


Andersen V. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 135 Nev. Adv. Op. 42 (Sept. 12, 2019) (En Banc), Erika Smolyar Sep 2019

Andersen V. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 135 Nev. Adv. Op. 42 (Sept. 12, 2019) (En Banc), Erika Smolyar

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

In light of recent statutes limiting the right to bear arms for people convicted of misdemeanor battery constituting domestic violence, the Court determined that because the Legislature reclassified misdemeanor battery in that context to constitute a serious offense, those convicted of it are entitled to a jury trial.


Anderson (Arnold) V. State, 135 Nev. Adv. Op. 37 (Sept. 5, 2019), Alexandra Matloff Sep 2019

Anderson (Arnold) V. State, 135 Nev. Adv. Op. 37 (Sept. 5, 2019), Alexandra Matloff

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court held that if a trial court determines by a preponderance of the evidence that a witness is unable to testify because the defendant wrongfully procured the witness’s unavailability and acted with intent to do so, the forfeiture-by-wrongdoing exception can be applied in order to deny a defendant’s rights under the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment. The Court also held that in determining whether the forfeiture-by-wrongdoing exception applies, the trial court must hear the opposing parties’ arguments in the absence of a jury.


Azucena V. State Of Nevada, 135 Nev. Ad. Op. (Sep. 5, 2019), Mia Mallette Sep 2019

Azucena V. State Of Nevada, 135 Nev. Ad. Op. (Sep. 5, 2019), Mia Mallette

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court determined that the trial judge’s actions during jury selection rose to the level of judicial misconduct in response to a prospective juror indicating she could not be unbiased. These actions could have impeded Azucena’s right to a fair trial with an impartial jury as the court feared that the potential jurors would not have been able to answer candidly about any biases they may have had.


To Bail Or Not To Bail: Protecting The Presumption Of Innocence In Nevada, Ebeth Palafox, Brendan Mcleod May 2019

To Bail Or Not To Bail: Protecting The Presumption Of Innocence In Nevada, Ebeth Palafox, Brendan Mcleod

Nevada Law Journal Forum

This white paper aims to discuss the issues associated with bail reform in Nevada, provide an analysis of bail reform efforts across the country, and purpose possible solutions for obstacles to bail reform in Nevada. The white paper’s proposed recommendations for practical bail reform is a three-phase plan to eliminate the injustices that arise from Nevada’s current cash bail model.


About A Revolution: Toward Integrated Treatment In Drug And Mental Health Courts, Sara Gordon Jan 2019

About A Revolution: Toward Integrated Treatment In Drug And Mental Health Courts, Sara Gordon

Scholarly Works

This Article examines specialty courts, including drug, alcohol, and mental health courts, which proponents claim created a revolution in criminal justice. Defendants whose underlying crime is the result of a substance use disorder or a mental health disorder can choose to be diverted into a specialty court, where they receive treatment instead of punishment. Many of these individuals, however, do not just suffer from a substance use disorder or a mental health disorder; instead, many have a “co-occurring disorder.” Approximately 8.9 million American adults have co-occurring mental health and substance use disorders, and almost half of individuals who meet ...


Granada-Ruiz V. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 134 Nev. Adv. Op. 57 (Aug. 2, 2018) (En Banc), Sara Schreiber Aug 2018

Granada-Ruiz V. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 134 Nev. Adv. Op. 57 (Aug. 2, 2018) (En Banc), Sara Schreiber

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court concluded that double jeopardy did not prohibit the appellant’s retrial because he had implied consent to the district court’s declaration of a mistrial. Further, it held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding manifest necessity to declare a mistrial. Thus, the Court denied the appellant’s petition for a writ of mandamus that would direct the district court to grant his motion to dismiss and bar his re-prosecution.


Sayedzada V. State, 134 Nev. Adv. Op. 38 (May 24, 2018), Sara Schreiber May 2018

Sayedzada V. State, 134 Nev. Adv. Op. 38 (May 24, 2018), Sara Schreiber

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court held that a party waives the right challenge a juror’s presence on appeal when the argument is based on facts known during voir dire; the party consciously made the decision to not pursue, or abandoned, a challenge for cause; and the party accepted the juror’s presence on the jury. The Court then examined the issue of juror bias, and explained the differences between actual, implied, and inferable bias.


Moore V. State Of Nevada, 134 Nev. Adv. Op. 35 (May 17, 2018), Casey Lee May 2018

Moore V. State Of Nevada, 134 Nev. Adv. Op. 35 (May 17, 2018), Casey Lee

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

No abstract provided.


Morgan Vs. State Of Nevada., 134 Nev. Adv. Op. 27 (May 3, 2018), Ronald Evans May 2018

Morgan Vs. State Of Nevada., 134 Nev. Adv. Op. 27 (May 3, 2018), Ronald Evans

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court determined that a defendant is not entitled to cross examine examiners who find him incompetent at a competency hearing where neither party subpoenaed the examiner to appear at said competency hearing. The Court further decided that the State’s failure to transport an incompetent Defendant to competency treatment within seven days of receiving a court order did not warrant the dismissal of charges against the Defendant. The Court also held that the District Court did not commit a structural error when Defendant moved to strike the jury venire. The Court went on to decide that Defendant was not ...


Making The Evil Less Necessary And The Necessary Less Evil: Towards A More Honest And Robust System Of Plea Bargaining, Steven P. Grossman May 2018

Making The Evil Less Necessary And The Necessary Less Evil: Towards A More Honest And Robust System Of Plea Bargaining, Steven P. Grossman

Nevada Law Journal

No abstract provided.


Bit By Bit: Breaking Down The Ninth Circuit's Frameworks For Jury Misconduct In The Digital Age, Jesse Gessin May 2018

Bit By Bit: Breaking Down The Ninth Circuit's Frameworks For Jury Misconduct In The Digital Age, Jesse Gessin

Nevada Law Journal

No abstract provided.


State V. Sample, 134 Nev. Adv. Op. 23 (Apr. 5, 2018), Sara Schreiber Apr 2018

State V. Sample, 134 Nev. Adv. Op. 23 (Apr. 5, 2018), Sara Schreiber

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

Gregory Frank Allen Sample (“Sample”) was arrested for driving under the influence. He had failed a preliminary breath test (“PBT”). The results of the failed PBT were used to obtain a search warrant for an evidentiary blood draw. The district court suppressed the PBT results because it concluded that the results were obtained in violation of Sample’s Fourth Amendment rights. The district court also suppressed the evidentiary blood draw because it was the fruit of an illegal search. The Court held that the district court erred in invalidating the telephonic search warrant and that the evidentiary blood draw should ...


Jeremias V. State, 134 Nev. Adv. Op. 8 (Mar. 01, 2018), Maliq Kendricks Mar 2018

Jeremias V. State, 134 Nev. Adv. Op. 8 (Mar. 01, 2018), Maliq Kendricks

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Nevada Supreme Court determined that a judgment of conviction, pursuant to a jury verdict, of one count each of conspiracy to commit robbery and burglary while in possession of a deadly weapon and two counts each of robbery with the use of a deadly weapon and murder with the use of a deadly weapon, commands a death sentence.


State V. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 134 Nev. Adv. Op. 13 (Mar. 1, 2018) (En Banc), Connor Saphire Mar 2018

State V. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 134 Nev. Adv. Op. 13 (Mar. 1, 2018) (En Banc), Connor Saphire

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court determined that when the State conducts a direct-examination of a witness during a preliminary hearing, and then the defendant waives his right to that preliminary hearing, the defendant is said to have had an “adequate opportunity” to confront that witness as long as adequate discovery was available.


Game Of Drones: Rolling The Dice With Unmanned Aerial Vehicles And Privacy, Rebecca L. Scharf Jan 2018

Game Of Drones: Rolling The Dice With Unmanned Aerial Vehicles And Privacy, Rebecca L. Scharf

Scholarly Works

This Article offers a practical three-part test for courts and law enforcement to utilize when faced with drone and privacy issues. Specifically addressing the question: how should courts analyze the Fourth Amendment’s protection against ‘unreasonable searches’ in the context of drones?

The Supreme Court’s Fourth Amendment jurisprudence produced an intricate framework to address issues arising out of the intersection of technology and privacy interests. In prominent decisions, including United States v. Katz, California v. Ciraolo, Kyllo v. United States, and most notably, United States v. Jones, the Court focused on whether the use of a single technology, such ...


Remorse Bias, M. Eve Hanan Jan 2018

Remorse Bias, M. Eve Hanan

Scholarly Works

In this article, Professor M. Eve Hanan addresses how implicit cognitive biases may affect judges when they decide whether to credit defendants' displays of remorse and how we can lessen the effects of that bias. Part I of this article introduces the main ideas to be discussed. Part II establishes the salience of remorse to punishment decisions and then demonstrates the ambiguity involved in assessing the sincerity of remorse. Part III examines existing research on implicit biases associating African Americans with criminality to consider whether judges are likely to view African American defendants' expressions of remorse as insincere and, thus ...


Big Law, Public Defender-Style: Aggregating Resources To Ensure Uniform Quality Of Representation, M. Eve Hanan Jan 2018

Big Law, Public Defender-Style: Aggregating Resources To Ensure Uniform Quality Of Representation, M. Eve Hanan

Scholarly Works

Stories abound of public defenders who, overwhelmed with high caseloads, allow defendants to languish in pre-trial detention and guilty pleas to be entered without examining the merits of the case. Most defendants cannot afford to hire an attorney, and, thus, have no choice other than to accept the public counsel appointed by the court. In this Essay, I consider whether Professor Benjamin Edwards' central argument in The Professional Prospectus: A Call for Effective Professional Disclosure '-that attorneys should provide potential clients with a prospectus disclosing their performance history-applies to criminal defense. I reject the proposition that most people charged with ...


Judicial Peremptory Challenges As Access Enhancers, Jeffrey W. Stempel Jan 2018

Judicial Peremptory Challenges As Access Enhancers, Jeffrey W. Stempel

Scholarly Works

Discussions regarding diminishing access to justice have centered on the high disputing costs, gradual contraction of substantive rights, and increasingly defendant-friendly procedure. The importance of the ideological, experiential, and jurisprudential orientation of the judges presiding over litigation at the trial level has received much less-and insufficient-attention. Because so much focus has been on federal appellate courts, commentators have largely overlooked a potentially powerful tool for improving access and promoting a fair airing of claims at the trial level: a litigant's automatic ability to transfer a case to a different judge as a matter of right to avoid judges who ...