Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 4 of 4
Full-Text Articles in Law
Farmer V. State, 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 86 (Nov. 16, 2017), Maliq Kendricks
Farmer V. State, 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 86 (Nov. 16, 2017), Maliq Kendricks
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
The Nevada Supreme Court determined that (1) Under NRS 173.115(2), separate offenses may be joined against a defendant when they are committed as parts of a common scheme where the defendant’s separate crimes share features idiosyncratic in character; and (2) under NRS 174.165(1), joinder is proper in situations where a defendant commits similar offenses in separate instances.
Jeffries V. State, 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 47 (July 6, 2017), Hayley Cummings
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 …
Delucchi V. Songer, 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 42 (June 29, 2017), Krystina Butchart
Delucchi V. Songer, 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 42 (June 29, 2017), Krystina Butchart
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
No abstract provided.
State V. Harris, 131 Nev. Adv. Op. 56, Ashleigh Wise
State V. Harris, 131 Nev. Adv. Op. 56, Ashleigh Wise
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
The Court held that it has the jurisdiction to consider an appeal by the State from an order granting a prejudgment motion for a new trial in a criminal matter because the plain language of NRS 177.015(1)(b) authorizes such an appeal and because unique policy concerns identified in State v. Lewis[1] do not apply.
[1] 124 Nev. 132, 136, 178 P.3d 146, 148 (2008).