Law Commons^™

Leavitt V. State, 132 Nev. Adv. Op. 83 (Dec. 29, 2016) (Per Curiam), Brent Resh

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court expressly repudiated the Ninth Circuit’s interpretation of Nevada law in Riley v. McDaniel and therefore found that Riley cannot serve as the basis for an argument that good cause exists to overcome a procedural default in filing a petition for a writ of habeas corpus.

Mayo V. Eigh. Jud, Dist. Ct., 123 Nev. Adv. Op. 79 (Nov. 23, 2016), Alex Velto

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court found that the district court did not err when it found no violation of NRS 172.145(2). The Court interpreted NRS 172.145(2), which creates a duty on district attorneys to submit evidence to a grand jury if they are “aware” it will “explain away the charge.” The Court determined that a district attorney must be “aware” evidence has exculpatory value before there is a duty to present the evidence to a grand jury. The district attorney is not obligated to present exculpatory evidence it possesses but does not recognize as exculpatory. In the case at issue, because the district …

Bowman V. State, 132 Nev. Adv. Op. 74 (Oct. 27, 2016), Marco Luna

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

A district court's failure to provide a jury instruction prohibiting jurors from conducting independent research, investigations, or experiments in any criminal or civil case constitutes error. Though likely harmless, the resulting prejudice may constitute reversible error.

Sindelar V. State, 132 Nev. Adv. Op. 68 (Sept. 29, 2016), Skyler Sullivan

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

In Nevada, if a person is convicted three times within seven years for driving under the influence (DUI), the third conviction is a category B felony.2 The Court held that a felony DUI conviction in Utah, which occurs upon a person’s third DUI conviction within ten years, can be included as a past conviction in a later DUI offense in Nevada to make the offense a category B felony under NRS 484.410 because the conduct required to violate the Utah law is “the same or similar” as that required to violate the Nevada law.

Manning V. State, 132 Nev. Adv. Op. 67 (September 15, 2016), Andrew Clark

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

A request for a jury instruction on a lesser-included offense is sufficient if there is any evidence the defendant can be convicted of the lesser crime. Failure to give such an instruction is reversible error. Further, although NRS 175.161(6) allows district courts to settle jury instructions in chambers, district courts should solicit written copies of proposed jury instructions to ensure a clear record on appeal.

Mcnamara V. State, 132 Nev. Adv. Op. 60 (August 12, 2016), Annie Avery

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court determined that (1) the state of Nevada has territorial jurisdiction under NRS 171.020 when a defendant has criminal intent and he or she performs any act in this state in furtherance of that criminal intent; (2) territorial jurisdiction is a question of law for the court, not a question of fact for the jury; (3) the State bears the burden of proving territorial jurisdiction by a preponderance of the evidence; and (4) omitting a lesser offense on a jury form is not a reversible error where the jury is properly instructed on the lesser offense.

Martinez-Hernandez V. The State Of Nevada, 132 Nev. Adv. Op. 61 (Aug. 12, 2016), Angela Lee

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Nevada Supreme Court determined that (1) if collateral consequences of a criminal conviction exist, a post-conviction petition for a writ of habeas corpus challenging the validity of a judgment of conviction, filed while imprisoned, is not moot once the petitioner is released, and (2) a criminal conviction creates a presumption that collateral consequences exist.

Steve Dell Mcneill V. The State Of Nevada, 132 Nev. Adv. Op. 54 (July 28, 2016), Adrian Viesca

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Supreme Court determined that the plain language of NRS 213.1243 does not grant the State Board of Parole Commissioners authority to impose additional conditions not enumerated in the statute when supervising sex offenders on lifetime supervision.

Blankenship V. State, 132 Nev. Ad. Op 50 (Jul. 21, 2016), Heather Armantrout

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court considered whether scoring errors in criminal defendants’ Probation Success Probability (PSP) forms constituted “impalpable or highly suspect evidence,” thereby adversely influencing the Division of Parole and Probation’s (the Division) sentencing recommendations. The Court affirmed one criminal defendant’s judgment of conviction (Docket No. 66118), but it vacated his sentence and remanded for a new sentencing hearing. It held that the district court abused its discretion and that defendant’s sentence was prejudiced because the district court relied on an erroneous PSP form in reaching its sentencing decision. It affirmed the judgment of conviction and sentence of another criminal defendant (Docket …

Grace V. The Eight Judicial District Court Of The State Of Nevada, Adrienne Brantley

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

This discusses whether Nevada justice courts have jurisdiction to rule on motions to suppress illegally obtained evidence. In March of 2014, the State filed a criminal complaint against LeCory Grace in the Las Vegas Justice Court. The complaint charged Grace with one count of possession of a controlled substance. At Grace’s preliminary hearing, Grace orally moved to suppress evidence that may have been illegally obtained. The justice court concluded that the search was unlawful, suppressed the evidence derived from the search and dismissed the case against Grace. The State appealed the justice court’s order of suppression and the Eighth Judicial …

Sparks V. Bare, 132 Nev. Adv. Op. 43 (Jun. 16, 2016), Emily Haws

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court determined under NRS 189.030(1) that (1) “a misdemeanor appellant is responsible for requesting transcripts and, if not indigent, paying for those transcripts;” and (2) that “the district court has the inherent authority to dismiss a misdemeanor appeal where the appellant fails to prosecute an appeal or comply with the court’s orders.”

Mason V. State, 132 Nev. Adv. Op. 42 (June 16, 2016), Shannon Diaz

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court determined that pursuant to NRS 176.035(1), a district court must pronounce aggregate minimum and maximum terms of imprisonment in a defendant’s judgment of conviction.

Taming The Wild West: Using Unsecured Bail Bonds In Nevada's Pretrial-Release Program, Hayley E. Miller

Nevada Law Journal

No abstract provided.

State V. Carroll, 132 Nev. Adv. Op. 23 (Apr. 7, 2016), Jessie Folkestad

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

Defendant Deangelo Carroll appealed from a conviction for conspiracy to commit murder and first-degree murder with use of a deadly weapon. The Supreme Court of Nevada found the district court erred in denying Carroll’s motion to suppress his statements to police because the police subjected Carroll to a custodial interrogation, without advising him of his Miranda rights. The Court affirmed however, finding the error harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.

State V. Boston, 132 Nev. Adv. Op. 20 (March. 31, 2016), Nancy Snow

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of two counts of first-degree murder with the use of a deadly weapon, one count of conspiracy to commit murder, and related crimes. Defendant was sentenced to death of each murder. The district court denied Defendant’s motion to suppress statements he made in two interviews with police after his initial appearance before a magistrate. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the district court did not err in denying Defendant’s motion to suppress, as his Sixth Amendment right to counsel attached at his initial appearance before the magistrate, but Defendant waived his right to …

Phong T. Vu V. Second Jud. Dist. Ct. Of Nev., 123 Nev. Adv. Op. 21 (Mar. 31, 2016), Chelsea Finnegan

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

Under NRS 433A.310(1)(b), a district court may issue an order of involuntary admittance to a mental health facility if there is clear and convincing evidence that the person is likely to harm himself or others. Here, the Court held that (1) a district court is not required to wait 30 days for a final order under NRS 433A.310(1)(b) before transmitting an involuntary admission to the proper agency, and (2) based on sufficient evidence, the district court properly concluded the petitioner should be admitted to a mental health facility.

Rippo V. State, 132 Nev. Adv. Op. 11 (Feb. 25, 2016), Kristian Kaskla

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

Rippo’s claim, that the ineffective assistance of the counsel who represented him in the first post conviction hearing excused the procedural bars to claims raised in the second petition, was rejected. The Court provided guidance on two issues related to whether an ineffective-assistance-of-postconviction-counsel claim has been raised in a timely fashion: (1) when does a postconviction-counsel claim reasonably become available, and (2) what is a reasonable time thereafter in which the claim must be asserted. They held on (1) that the factual basis for such a claim is not reasonably available until the conclusion of postconviction proceedings in which the …

Quisano V. State, 132 Nev. Adv. Op. 9 (February 18, 2016), Michael Hua

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

This court affirmed an appeal from a judgment of conviction, pursuant to an Alford plea, of voluntary manslaughter and child abuse, neglect, or endangerment with substantial bodily harm holding:

(1) Brady violations do not occur when the evidence in question is not favorable to the defendant;

(2) Prosecutors have a strict duty to disclose under their own open-file policy until sentencing proceedings; and,

(3) Media outlets require a written by the district court to electronically cover proceedings unless nonconstitutional or harmless error results in such coverage.

Crossing The Line: Daubert, Dual Roles, And The Admissibility Of Forensic Mental Health Testimony, Sara Gordon

Scholarly Works

Psychiatrists and other mental health professionals often testify as forensic experts in civil commitment and criminal competency proceedings. When an individual clinician assumes both a treatment and a forensic role in the context of a single case, however, that clinician forms a dual relationship with the patient—a practice that creates a conflict of interest and violates professional ethical guidelines. The court, the parties, and the patient are all affected by this conflict and the biased testimony that may result from dual relationships. When providing forensic testimony, the mental health professional’s primary duty is to the court, not to the patient, …

Decriminalizing Violence: A Critique Of Restorative Justice And Proposal For Diversionary Mediation, M. Eve Hanan

Scholarly Works

In this article, Professor Hanan explores the issues surrounding reforms to the criminal justice system, juveniles, and conflict resolution. She asserts that enthusiasm for restorative justice as the best method of out-of-court dispute resolution in criminal cases should be tempered in favor of mediation, which is neutral because it does not assume that the accused is guilty and that "healing" or repair is warranted. Because decriminalization is not complete and the state retains jurisdiction, Professor Hanan argues for a neutral mediation program, which should (1) function to reduce overall contact with the criminal courts and (2) include procedural safeguards in …

Newman V. State, 132 Nev. Adv. Op. 31 (April 28, 2016), Andrea Orwoll

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court reviewed two consolidated appeals involving sentencing concerns, which stemmed from a district court judgment revoking probation and a district court judgment of conviction pursuant to a guilty plea. The Court dismissed the appeal of the probation revocation because appellant did not present any cogent arguments on that issue and because she had already been released from the nine-month sentence, rendering the appeal moot. As to the judgment of conviction, the Court affirmed. The Court held that a court may consider a defendant’s status as a pregnant drug addict in sentencing, especially if the status brought up by the …

Taylor Vs. State, 132 Nev. Adv. Op. 27 (April. 21, 2016), Marta Kurshumova

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court determined that (1) access and usage of historical cell phone connection data without a warrant does not violate the Fourth Amendment if the “specific and articulable facts” standard is met, (2) the out-of-court and in-court identifications did not violate Taylor’s constitutional rights to due process of law, (3) the prosecutorial conduct during closing arguments did not violate Taylor’s Sixth Amendment right to a fair trial or Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination, and (4) there was sufficient evidence at trial to support the jury's finding of guilt.

Harte V. State, 132 Nev., Adv. Op. 40 (June 2, 2016), Brandonn Grossman

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court reaffirmed Flanagan v State, holding that the district court has discretion to admit evidence of a codefendant’s sentence in penalty hearings and affirming the district court’s sentence in the matter.