Law Commons^™

State Of Nevada V. Second Judicial District Court., 134 Nev. Adv. Op. 51 (Jul. 19, 2018), Ronald Evans

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court determined that when the State allows a defendant to plead guilty to a first offense domestic battery for a second offense of domestic battery, the State must treat the second conviction as a first conviction for enhancement purposes unless the defendant receives appropriate clarification and warning of the State’s intention to use the second conviction as a second conviction for future enhancement purposes.

Guerrina V. State, 134 Nev. Adv. Op. 45 (June 7, 2018), Xheni Ristani

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court affirmed Lyons v. State, which gives the courts discretion to reject a defendant’s request for self-representation if the request is untimely. Further, the Court affirmed the Mendoza v. State test, which allows a single incident to sustain convictions for both robbery and kidnapping if any movement or restraint creates a risk to the victim substantially exceeding what is necessarily present in the crime of robbery. Finally, the Court held that the State must satisfy NRS § 193.165 to sustain deadly weapon charges.

Coleman V. State, 134 Nev. Adv. Op. 28 (May. 3, 2018), Maliq Kendricks

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Nevada Supreme Court determined that a judgment of conviction pursuant to NRS 200.604(1) is only valid when a person captures or disseminates an image of another's private parts, taken without their consent, under circumstances in which that person has a reasonable expectation of privacy.

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.

Andrews V. State, 134 Nev. Adv. Op. 12 (Mar. 01, 2018), Samantha Scofield

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

Under NRS 453.3385, simultaneous possession of different schedule I controlled substances creates separate offenses and the weights of the controlled substances shall not be aggregated together.

Rodriguez V. State, 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 110 (Dec. 28, 2017), Natice Locke, Natice Locke

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court determined that both the inherently dangerous and the functional definitions apply to “deadly weapon,” and that the use of the functional definition does not go against the legislature’s intent in NRS 200.481.

Brown V. Eighth Judicial Dist. Ct, 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 113 (December 28, 2017, Ebeth Rocio Palafox

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court clarified the definition of an indigent person and the demonstration of need sufficient required for an indigent person’s request for defense services. The Court additionally held that Widdis v. Second Judicial Dist. Court does not require an indigent defendant to request a sum certain before the consideration or granting of a motion for defense services at public expense.

Shue V. State Of Nevada, 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 99 (Dec. 14, 2017), Margaret Higgins

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Nevada Supreme Court held that (1) under NRS 200.710(2), knowingly using a minor as the subject of a sexual portrayal in a performance, the proper unit of prosecution is one conviction per each distinct minor appearing as the subject of a sexual portrayal in a performance; (2) under NRS 200.730, the “simultaneous possession at one time and place of [multiple] images depicting child pornography constituted a single violation of NRS 200.730”; (3) the statute barring the “sexual portrayals” of minors are not overbroad and do not violate the First Amendment or the Due Process Clause of the United States …

Doe V. State Ex Rel. Legislature Of The 77th Session, 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 93 (Dec. 7, 2017), Shady Sirsy

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Nevada Supreme Court held that (1) a medical marijuana registry in Nevada does not encroach upon a medical marijuana user’s fundamental right; (2) the registry is rationally related to legitimate state interests beneficial to the public; and (3) the registry does not implicate a registrant’s right against self-incrimination.

Mullner V. State, 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 98 (Dec. 7, 2017), Joseph K. Fabbi

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

A court can use offenses committed as a juvenile, but charged and convicted as an adult, when it considers habitual criminal sentencing, especially if the offender’s past convictions are similar to the crime currently being considered for sentencing.

Bradley V. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 92 (Nov. 22, 2017), Brianna Stutz

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court held that the district court erred when it ordered J.A.’s juvenile and delinquency records be turned over to the defense in Hudson’s criminal case. The Court held that Dr. Bradley’s confidential records pertaining to J.A. are privileged, and no exception or waiver applies.

Alotaibi V. State, 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 81 (Nov. 9, 2017) (En Banc), Brendan Mcleod

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court clarified that when an element goes only to punishment and is not essential to a finding of guilt, it is not an element of the offense for purposes of determining whether a lesser-included-offense instruction is warranted pursuant to NRS 175.501. Further, the Court determined that where a statute provides alternative ways of committing an uncharged offense, the elements of only one of those alternatives needs to be included in the charged offense for the uncharged offense to be a lesser-included offense.

Williams V. State Dep’T Of Corr., 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 75 (Oct. 5, 2017), Xheni Ristani

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Nevada Supreme Court considered whether an offender must serve the minimum term of his or her sentence before any credits earned pursuant to the Credits statute apply to eligibility for parole. The Court disagreed with this argument and held that credits earned can factor-in for parole eligibility if the offender was sentenced under a state that requires a minimum term but does not explicitly mention parole eligibility.

Johnson V. State, 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 73 (Oct. 5, 2017) (En Banc), Ebeth Rocio Palafox

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

When the Court reverses a death sentence on direct appeal and remands for a new penalty hearing, there is no longer a final judgment that triggers the one-year period set forth in NRS 34.726(1) for filing a post-conviction petition for a writ of habeas corpus.

Desai V. State, 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 48 (July 27, 2017), Christopher Giddens

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court determined that a defendant can be convicted of aiding and abetting negligent or reckless crimes upon sufficient proof that the defendant was aware of, and had the intent to promote or further, the negligent or reckless conduct that caused harm. Additionally, the Court (1) confirmed appellant’s convictions for aiding and abetting negligent and reckless “endangerment crimes”; and (2) reversed appellant’s second-degree murder conviction due to intervening causes between his actions and the victim’s death.

Jeffries V. State, 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 47 (July 6, 2017), Hayley Cummings

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

In denying appellant’s motion for a mistrial, the Court held that (1) to prove prosecutorial misconduct, an appellant must show that a prosecutor’s statements resulted in a denial of due process; and (2) to prove juror misconduct, an appellant must show that misconduct occurred and that the misconduct was prejudicial. The Court also clarified Bowman v. State’s applicability by stating that when juror misconduct occurs before the verdict, and defense counsel is aware of the misconduct, it is defense counsel’s responsibility to request an investigation regarding prejudice. Finally, the Court defined the scope of Gonzalez v. State by stating …

Anselmo V. Bisbee, 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 45 (Jun. 29, 2017), Marco Luna

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Nevada Parole Board can deny parole for any reason authorized by regulation or statute. However, inmates do have a statutory right to have a parole hearing under NRS 213.140(1). Therefore, in limited cases where the Nevada Parole Board clearly misapplied its own internal guidelines in assessing whether to grant parole to an inmate, a new parole hearing is warranted.

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.

A.J. V. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 28 (June 1, 2017), Briana Martinez

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

NRS 62C.240 is triggered when circumstances surrounding a juvenile’s arrest plainly demonstrate that the juvenile was arrested for prostitution or solicitation even if the juvenile is charged with offenses other than prostitution or solicitation.

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).

Solid V. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 17 (Apr. 27, 2017), Hunter Davidson

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court interpreted Nevada Supreme Court Rules (“SCR” or the “Rules”) on Electronic Coverage of Court Proceedings: (1) My Entertainment TV (MET) is a “news reporter” under SCR 229(1)(c) because it collects, edits, and publishes footage concerning local events for public dissemination; (2) Clark County court proceedings footage has the educational or informational purpose required by SCR 241; (3) camera presence in the court room alone does not overcome the presumption permitting electronic recording of court proceedings under SCR 230; and (4) contract provisions must be read together, and the result should comport with the SCR on electronic coverage of …

Renteria-Novoa (Guillermo) V. State, 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 11 (March 30, 2017), Briana Martinez

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The district court abused its discretion in declining to appoint postonviction counsel to appellant. Appointment of counsel under NRS § 34.750(1) is not necessarily dependent upon whether a pro se petitioner raised claims that have merit or warrant an evidentiary hearing. Language barriers may deprive appellants of a meaningful opportunity to present his or her claims, and should therefore be taken into consideration.

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 …

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.

State V. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct. (Schneider), 132 Nev. Adv. Op. 59 (Aug. 12, 2016), Ping Chang

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court held that the district court abused its discretion when overturning a misdemeanor driving under the influence conviction by failing to consider the state’s evidence of the defendant’s guilt.

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.

Mary Lou Cornella V. Churchill County, Et Al., 132 Nev. Adv. Op. 58 (August 12, 2016), Stephanie Glantz

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

No abstract provided.