Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 5 of 5
Full-Text Articles in Law
Statewide Rules Of Criminal Procedure: A 50 State Review, Emily Dyer, Chelsea Stacey, Adrian Viesca
Statewide Rules Of Criminal Procedure: A 50 State Review, Emily Dyer, Chelsea Stacey, Adrian Viesca
Nevada Law Journal Forum
Nevada is amongst the minority of states without statewide criminal procedure rules. Statewide rules are important because they promote fairness, regularity, and transparency regardless of where in the state a criminal case is being adjudicated and who it is being adjudicated in front of. This report intends to compare the varying states’ criminal procedure rules, to provide Nevada’s legal community with an awareness of how rules can be structured, what rules are included, and how rules interact with statutes and other court rules. If Nevada chooses to follow in the path of the forty-seven states and develop statewide criminal procedure …
Barber V. State, 131 Nev. Adv, Op. 103 (December 31, 2015), Ronni N. Boscovich
Barber V. State, 131 Nev. Adv, Op. 103 (December 31, 2015), Ronni N. Boscovich
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
The Court considered an appeal from a district court conviction. The Court reversed the Eighth Judicial District Court’s judgment of conviction, pursuant to a jury verdict of burglary and grand larceny. The juvenile court retains jurisdiction over Barber because the legislation did not include language regarding jurisdiction stripping or dismissal requirements. However, the Court reversed the judgment because the prosecution presented insufficient evidence to support Barber’s conviction.
Cassinelli V. State Of Nevada, 131 Nev. Adv. Op. 62 131(Aug. 27, 2015), Mackenzie Warren
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.
Summary Of Barral V. State, 131 Nev. Adv. Op. 52 (July 23, 2015), Aleem Dhalla
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.
Encouraging Victims: Responding To A Recent Study Of Battered Women Who Commit Crimes, Andrea L. Dennis, Carol E. Jordan
Encouraging Victims: Responding To A Recent Study Of Battered Women Who Commit Crimes, Andrea L. Dennis, Carol E. Jordan
Nevada Law Journal
No abstract provided.