Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- Jury Instructions (2)
- CRIMINAL LAW: EVIDENCE (1)
- Death Penalty (1)
- Domestic Battery (1)
- Finality (1)
-
- Grand Jury (1)
- Intermediate Restitution (1)
- Jury Trial (1)
- Mentally Ill (1)
- New Sentence (1)
- New Trial (1)
- PRIOR BAD ACTS (1)
- Parole Board (1)
- Prohibited Persons (1)
- Right to a Jury (1)
- Sentence Modification (1)
- Sentencing (1)
- Sixth Amendment (1)
- Suppressed Evidence (1)
- Vindictiveness (1)
- Witness (1)
- Writ of Mandamus (1)
Articles 1 - 10 of 10
Full-Text Articles in Law
Gathrite V. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 135 Nev. Adv. Op. 54 (Nov. 7, 2019), Skylar Arakawa-Pamphilon
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.
Witter V. State, 135 Nev. Adv. Op. 73444 (Nov. 14, 2019), John Bays
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 …
Newson V. State, 135 Nev. Adv. Op. 50 (Oct. 10, 2019), Richard Young
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
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
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.
Castillo V. State, 135 Nev. Adv. Op. 16 (May. 30, 2019), E. Sebastian Cate-Cribari
Castillo V. State, 135 Nev. Adv. Op. 16 (May. 30, 2019), E. Sebastian Cate-Cribari
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
The Court determined that (1) a defendant is death-eligible in Nevada once the State proves beyond a reasonable doubt the elements of first-degree murder and at least one statutory aggravating circumstance; and (2) the beyond-a-reasonable-doubt standard does not apply to the weighing of aggravating and mitigating circumstances.
Anderson (Arnold) V. State, 135 Nev. Adv. Op. 37 (Sept. 5, 2019), Alexandra Matloff
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.
Hager V. State, 135 Nev. Adv. Op. 34 (Aug. 29, 2019), Brittney Lehtinen
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
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.
Franks (Kenneth) V. State, 135 Nev. Adv. Op. 1 (Jan. 3, 2019), Scott Whitworth
Franks (Kenneth) V. State, 135 Nev. Adv. Op. 1 (Jan. 3, 2019), Scott Whitworth
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
The Court reviewed whether a district court’s decision to allow the State to introduce prior incidents of uncharged sexual acts as evidence of the defendant’s propensity for committing sexual offenses violated NRS 48.045(3) and concluded such evidence as long as it is first evaluated for relevance and its heightened risk of unfair prejudice.