Law Commons^™

State V. Boston, 131 Nev. Adv. Op. 98 (Dec. 31, 2015), Nancy Snow

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court considers an appeal from a district court order granting a post-conviction petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Specifically, the Court considered whether the holding in Graham applies when an aggregate sentence imposed against a juvenile defender convicted of more than one nonhomicide offense is the equivalent of a life-without-parole sentence. The Court held that it does.

Gonzalez V. State, 131 Nev. Adv. Op. 99 (Dec. 31, 2015), Chelsea Stacey

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court, sitting en banc, determined that by failing to answer questions from the jury that suggested confusion on a significant element of the law, failing to give an accomplice-distrust instruction, and by not bifurcating the guilt phase from the gang enhancement phase the district court violated the defendant’s right to a fair trial.

Berry V. State, 131 Nev. Adv. Op. No. 96 (Dec. 24, 2015), Brittany L. Shipp

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The issue before the Court was an appeal from a district court order dismissing a post-conviction petition for writ of habeas corpus. The Court reversed and remanded holding that the district court improperly discounted the declarations in support of the appellant’s petition, which included a confession of another suspect, whom the petitioner implicated as the real perpetrator at trial. The Court held that these declarations were sufficient to merit discovery, and an evidentiary hearing on Petitioner Berry’s gateway actual innocence claim.

Newell V. State Of Nevada, 131 Nev. Adv. Op. 97 (December 24, 2015), Douglas H. Smith

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The holding of State v. Weddell is extended. Responding with deadly force to the commission of a felony per NRS § 200.160 is justified only when the person poses a threat of serious bodily injury. Short of such a threat, the amount of force used must be reasonable and necessary under the circumstances.

State V. Merlino, 131 Nev. Adv. Op. No. 65 (Sept. 10, 2015), Brittany L. Shipp

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The issue before the Court was whether selling stolen property through a retractable sliding tray on a pawn shop’s drive-through window satisfied the element of unlawful entry of a building as defined in the burglary statute. The Court held that when the outer boundary of a building is not self-evident from the shape and contours of the structure itself, courts must apply California’s “reasonable belief” test which legally defines the outer boundary to include, “any element that encloses an area into which a reasonable person would believe that a member of the general public could not pass without authorization.”

State V. Smith, 131 Nev. Adv. Op. 63 (Sept. 3, 2015), Jessie Vargas

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

Defendant Terrance Reed Smith entered a no contest plea to one count of child abuse resulting in substantial bodily harm. The Supreme Court of Nevada held Smith’s plea was involuntary because the plea was made in response to acts of coercion by the Washoe County Department of Social Services (“DDS”).

Cassinelli V. State Of Nevada, 131 Nev. Adv. Op. 62 131(Aug. 27, 2015), Mackenzie Warren

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court of Appeals determined that (1) the district court erred by ruling that Cassinelli was not eligible for alcohol treatment under NRS § 458.300(1)(d); (2) the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Cassinelli’s request for assignment to a program of treatment; (3) the plea agreement was not breached and the prosecutor did not engage in misconduct at sentencing; (4) the district court did not err by refusing Cassinelli an opportunity to cross-examine the victim during her impact statement at sentencing; (5) Cassinelli’s sentence was illegal.

State V. Harris, 131 Nev. Adv. Op. 56, Ashleigh Wise

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court held that it has the jurisdiction to consider an appeal by the State from an order granting a prejudgment motion for a new trial in a criminal matter because the plain language of NRS 177.015(1)(b) authorizes such an appeal and because unique policy concerns identified in State v. Lewis[1] do not apply.

[1] 124 Nev. 132, 136, 178 P.3d 146, 148 (2008).

Johnson V. State Of Nevada, 131 Nev. Adv. Op. 58, Joseph Meissner

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court heard an appeal from a sentence and conviction following a jury trial of one count of conspiracy to commit robbery, two counts of robbery, and one count of battery with intent to commit a crime. Affirmed.

Summary Of Barral V. State, 131 Nev. Adv. Op. 52 (July 23, 2015), Aleem Dhalla

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

Defendant Dustin James Barral was convicted of two counts of sexual assault with a minor under 14 years of age by a jury. The Supreme Court of Nevada held that the trial court committed a structural error by failing to administer an oath or affrimation to the jury panel prior to commencing voir dire. This error required reversal and a new trial.

Summary Of Lisle V. State, 131 Nev. Adv. Op. 39 (June 25, 2015), Adam Wynott

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court held that the petitions filed by the appellant, Kevin James Lisle (Lisle), were procedurally barred. The Court determined that a petitioner cannot present new evidence of mitigating circumstances in order to prove actual innocence of the death penalty. The Court determined that the claims of Lisle did not warrant relief and upheld the district court ruling.

Summary Of Guitron (Miguel) V. State, 131 Nev. Adv. Op. 27 (May 21, 2015), Aleem Dhalla

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court determined that (1) the State presented sufficient evidence for a jury to convict Guitron of incest and sexual assault, (2) the district court did err by not allowing Guitron to introduce evidence of the victims sexual knowledge, but this error was harmless, (3) the district court did err refusing to give the jury Guitron’s requested inverse elements instruction, but this error was also harmless, and (4) Guitron could not show that the district court erred by denying his Batson challenge.

Oversight Hearing On Juvenile Justice In Indian Country: Challenges And Promising Strategies, Addie C. Rolnick

Congressional Testimony

In her testimony before the United States Senate Committee on Indian Affairs, Prof. Rolnick describes her research and recommendations concerning how to improve juvenile justice for American Indian and Alaska Native youth.

Advocacy As An Exercise In Virtue: Lawyering, Bad Facts, And Furman's High-Stakes Dilemma, Linda H. Edwards

Scholarly Works

Two of the conversations benefitting most from Jack Sammons's scholarship are conversations about legal rhetoric and about virtue ethics. Legal rhetoric is the study of the conventions of legal argument, specifically, the art of identifying and evaluating the best available means of persuasion and implementing those means effectively in light of audience, purpose, and occasion. Virtue ethics approaches moral reflection by asking what sort of person a particular moral choice encourages the actor to become. It focuses on consequences to the moral agent herself rather than directly focusing on consequences to others. The goal is to become a virtuous person, …

Confrontation After Ohio V. Clark, Anne R. Traum

Scholarly Works

The Supreme Court’s decision in Ohio v. Clark, provides an occasion to take stock of the Sixth Amendment Right to Confrontation since the court’s landmark 2004 decision in Crawford v. Washington. Crawford strengthened a defendant’s right to confront his accusers face-to-face, underscoring that cross-examination is the constitutionally preferred method for testing the reliability of accusatory statements. Clark could eliminate that right in a wide range of cases where, although the reliability of a declarant’s out-of-court statements is critically important, a defendant has no right to confrontation.