Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Law Commons

Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Articles 1 - 30 of 266

Full-Text Articles in Law

Bowser V. State Of Nevada, 135 Nev. Adv. Op. 15 (May 16, 2019), Andrew Brown Sep 2019

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.


Menendez-Cordero V. State, 135 Nev. Adv. Op. 29 (Jul 25, 2019), Nick Hagenkord Sep 2019

Menendez-Cordero V. State, 135 Nev. Adv. Op. 29 (Jul 25, 2019), Nick Hagenkord

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court concluded that (1) the empanelment of an anonymous jury does not, without actual prejudice, infringe on a defendant’s constitutional rights and the district court satisfied the abuse-of-discretion standard adopted; (2) the district court need not instruct a jury that is responsible for imposing a sentence in a first-degree murder case under NRS 175.552 about the effects of a deadly weapon enhancement; and (3) there was no abuse of discretion in the district court’s decision to admit Menendez-Cordero’s threats as consciousness-of-guilt evidence.


Anderson (Arnold) V. State, 135 Nev. Adv. Op. 37 (Sept. 5, 2019), Alexandra Matloff Sep 2019

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 Sep 2019

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.


Azucena V. State Of Nevada, 135 Nev. Ad. Op. (Sep. 5, 2019), Mia Mallette Sep 2019

Azucena V. State Of Nevada, 135 Nev. Ad. Op. (Sep. 5, 2019), Mia Mallette

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court determined that the trial judge’s actions during jury selection rose to the level of judicial misconduct in response to a prospective juror indicating she could not be unbiased. These actions could have impeded Azucena’s right to a fair trial with an impartial jury as the court feared that the potential jurors would not have been able to answer candidly about any biases they may have had.


Andersen V. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 135 Nev. Adv. Op. 42 (Sept. 12, 2019) (En Banc), Erika Smolyar Sep 2019

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.


Granada-Ruiz V. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 134 Nev. Adv. Op. 57 (Aug. 2, 2018) (En Banc), Sara Schreiber Aug 2018

Granada-Ruiz V. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 134 Nev. Adv. Op. 57 (Aug. 2, 2018) (En Banc), Sara Schreiber

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court concluded that double jeopardy did not prohibit the appellant’s retrial because he had implied consent to the district court’s declaration of a mistrial. Further, it held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding manifest necessity to declare a mistrial. Thus, the Court denied the appellant’s petition for a writ of mandamus that would direct the district court to grant his motion to dismiss and bar his re-prosecution.


Sayedzada V. State, 134 Nev. Adv. Op. 38 (May 24, 2018), Sara Schreiber May 2018

Sayedzada V. State, 134 Nev. Adv. Op. 38 (May 24, 2018), Sara Schreiber

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court held that a party waives the right challenge a juror’s presence on appeal when the argument is based on facts known during voir dire; the party consciously made the decision to not pursue, or abandoned, a challenge for cause; and the party accepted the juror’s presence on the jury. The Court then examined the issue of juror bias, and explained the differences between actual, implied, and inferable bias.


Moore V. State Of Nevada, 134 Nev. Adv. Op. 35 (May 17, 2018), Casey Lee May 2018

Moore V. State Of Nevada, 134 Nev. Adv. Op. 35 (May 17, 2018), Casey Lee

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

No abstract provided.


Morgan Vs. State Of Nevada., 134 Nev. Adv. Op. 27 (May 3, 2018), Ronald Evans May 2018

Morgan Vs. State Of Nevada., 134 Nev. Adv. Op. 27 (May 3, 2018), Ronald Evans

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court determined that a defendant is not entitled to cross examine examiners who find him incompetent at a competency hearing where neither party subpoenaed the examiner to appear at said competency hearing. The Court further decided that the State’s failure to transport an incompetent Defendant to competency treatment within seven days of receiving a court order did not warrant the dismissal of charges against the Defendant. The Court also held that the District Court did not commit a structural error when Defendant moved to strike the jury venire. The Court went on to decide that Defendant was not ...


State V. Sample, 134 Nev. Adv. Op. 23 (Apr. 5, 2018), Sara Schreiber Apr 2018

State V. Sample, 134 Nev. Adv. Op. 23 (Apr. 5, 2018), Sara Schreiber

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

Gregory Frank Allen Sample (“Sample”) was arrested for driving under the influence. He had failed a preliminary breath test (“PBT”). The results of the failed PBT were used to obtain a search warrant for an evidentiary blood draw. The district court suppressed the PBT results because it concluded that the results were obtained in violation of Sample’s Fourth Amendment rights. The district court also suppressed the evidentiary blood draw because it was the fruit of an illegal search. The Court held that the district court erred in invalidating the telephonic search warrant and that the evidentiary blood draw should ...


State V. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 134 Nev. Adv. Op. 13 (Mar. 1, 2018) (En Banc), Connor Saphire Mar 2018

State V. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 134 Nev. Adv. Op. 13 (Mar. 1, 2018) (En Banc), Connor Saphire

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court determined that when the State conducts a direct-examination of a witness during a preliminary hearing, and then the defendant waives his right to that preliminary hearing, the defendant is said to have had an “adequate opportunity” to confront that witness as long as adequate discovery was available.


Jeremias V. State, 134 Nev. Adv. Op. 8 (Mar. 01, 2018), Maliq Kendricks Mar 2018

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.


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

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.


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

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.


Collins V. State, 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 88 (Nov. 22, 2017), Casey Lee Nov 2017

Collins V. State, 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 88 (Nov. 22, 2017), Casey Lee

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The court determined that (1) the district court may constitutionally remove a criminal defendant from the courtroom for disrupting courtroom procedure, (2) a defendant does not have the right to appear at trial in shackles, (3) testimony about a detective’s investigation leading to the defendant’s arrest is not opinion about the defendant’s guilt, (4) the district court may decide not to instruct a jury on a lesser-included offense if no evidence on the record establishes an element of that offense, and (5) a specific cause of death is not required to find that a person’s death ...


City Of Las Vegas V. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 82 (Nov. 16, 2017), Jocelyn Murphy Nov 2017

City Of Las Vegas V. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 82 (Nov. 16, 2017), Jocelyn Murphy

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

(1) The Court held the district court’s order was “contrary to the evidence” because the record was not sufficient to determine that any unpreserved issues were “plain” error. (2) The court also determined that NRS 50.155(1) does not presently bar witnesses from communicating outside of the courtroom about topics other than witness testimony when the witness exclusion rule is in effect.


Farmer V. State, 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 86 (Nov. 16, 2017), Maliq Kendricks Nov 2017

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.


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

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.


Sweat V. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 76 (October 5, 2017), Shannon Zahm Oct 2017

Sweat V. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 76 (October 5, 2017), Shannon Zahm

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Double Jeopardy Clause does not protect a defendant from prosecution of any original charges when the defendant accepts a plea agreement for a lesser-included offense and then fails to comply with all the terms of the agreement. The Court ultimately determined that a defendant waives his double jeopardy rights when he pleads guilty and fails to comply with the remaining terms of the agreement.


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

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.


Thomas V. Eighth Judicial Dist. Ct., 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 63 (Sept. 14, 2017), Sara Schreiber Sep 2017

Thomas V. Eighth Judicial Dist. Ct., 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 63 (Sept. 14, 2017), Sara Schreiber

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

When a defendant requests and is granted a mistrial, jeopardy will attach if a prosecutor’s conduct is so egregious that it results in prejudice to the defendant that cannot be remedied by anything short of a mistrial.


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

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 ...


Brioady V. State, 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 41 (Jun. 29, 2017), Maegun Mooso Jun 2017

Brioady V. State, 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 41 (Jun. 29, 2017), Maegun Mooso

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court determined that (1) Appellant’s motion for a new trial complied with the provisions of NRS 176.515(3); and (2) that the district court abused its discretion in denying Appellant’s motion for a new trial based on juror misconduct when it relied on the belief of the Juror who had withheld information during voir dire that she could remain impartial.


Pimentel V. State, 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 31 (June 22, 2017), Ping Chang Jun 2017

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.


City Of Henderson V. Amado, 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 36 (June 22, 2017), Andrew Clark Jun 2017

City Of Henderson V. Amado, 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 36 (June 22, 2017), Andrew Clark

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

After a prosecutor voluntarily dismisses a criminal case, NRS § 174.085(5)(b) allows that prosecutor to file an amended complaint in the original case with the original case number. Further, a district court acts arbitrarily and capriciously when it requires the prosecutor to file a new complaint with a new case number following voluntary dismissal.


Stewart V. State, 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 20 (May 4, 2017), Margarita Elias May 2017

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).


Office Of The Attorney General V. Justice Court (Escalante), 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 12 (Apr. 6, 2017), Kristopher Kalkowski Apr 2017

Office Of The Attorney General V. Justice Court (Escalante), 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 12 (Apr. 6, 2017), Kristopher Kalkowski

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court determined that NRS 30.130, which concerns the Attorney General’s right to be notified and an opportunity to be heard in constitutional challenges to Nevada statutes, does not apply to criminal proceedings. Instead, NRS 30.130 only refers to a proceeding for declaratory relief, which is treated as a civil action.


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

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 Dec 2016

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.