Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 2 of 2
Full-Text Articles in Law
Pimentel V. State, 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 31 (June 22, 2017), Ping Chang
Pimentel V. State, 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 31 (June 22, 2017), Ping Chang
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
The Court determined that (1) the challenge-to-fight theory under NRS 200.450 is not vague and overbroad, (2) all bench conferences must be recorded in criminal trials, (3) self-defense is not available as a defense in a violation of NRS 200.450, and (4) an expert witness cannot impeach defendant’s testimony with statements defendant made during court-ordered psychiatric evaluation.
Stewart V. State, 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 20 (May 4, 2017), Margarita Elias
Stewart V. State, 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 20 (May 4, 2017), Margarita Elias
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
Before his interrogation, Tommy Laquade Stewart (“Stewart”) was given LVMPD’s Miranda warning pursuant to Miranda v. Arizona.[1] Stewart then agreed to speak with detectives without an attorney. He was subsequently charged and convicted of kidnapping and robbery. On appeal, Stewart argued that there was insufficient evidence to support the convictions and that the Miranda warning was legally insufficient. The Court disagreed and affirmed the district court’s judgment of conviction.
[1] 384 U.S. 436 (1966).