Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- ADMISSIBILITY OF PRIOR BAD ACTS (1)
- CRIMINAL APPEAL (1)
- CRIMINAL APPEAL: EVIDENCE (1)
- CRIMINAL APPEAL: EXPERT WITNESS REQUIREMENTS (1)
- CRIMINAL APPEAL: PROBATION (1)
-
- CRIMINAL APPEAL: STATUTORY INTERPRETATION (1)
- CRIMINAL LAW: BATTERY AS AN ENHANCEMENT STATUTE (1)
- CRIMINAL LAW: DEATH PENALTY (1)
- CRIMINAL LAW: DEATH PENALTY APPEAL (1)
- CRIMINAL LAW: DEATH SENTENCE APPEAL (1)
- CRIMINAL LAW: EVIDENCE (1)
- CRIMINAL LAW: LARCENY FROM THE PERSON (1)
- CRIMINAL LAW: MOTION TO SUPPRESS (1)
- CRIMINAL LAW: OPTIONS TO APPEAL JUSTICE COURT DETERMINATIONS (1)
- CRIMINAL LAW: PEREMPTORY CHALLENGES AND CONTRIVED SEXUAL ALLEGATIONS BY MINORS (1)
- CRIMINAL LAW: STATUTORY INTERPRETATION APPEAL (1)
- CRIMINAL LAW: VICARIOUS LIABILITY UNDER NRS 212.165(4) (1)
- CRIMINAL LAW: ¬MANDAMUS/PROHIBITION (1)
- HEARSAY (1)
- PLEA BARGAINS: SUBJECTIVE INTERPRETATION OF A PLEA BARGAIN (1)
Articles 1 - 19 of 19
Full-Text Articles in Law
Harris V. State, 134 Nev. Adv. Op. 107 (Dec. 27, 2018) (En Banc), Yilmaz Turkeri
Harris V. State, 134 Nev. Adv. Op. 107 (Dec. 27, 2018) (En Banc), Yilmaz Turkeri
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
The Court considered whether the admission of gruesome photographs showing the disfigured bodies of the victims following their deaths and the subsequent autopsies amounted to an abuse of the district court’s discretion. The Court concluded that admission of these photographs was an abuse of the district court’s discretion.
State V. Brown (Taren), 134 Nev. Adv. Op. 102 (Dec. 20, 2018), Tracie Jefcik
State V. Brown (Taren), 134 Nev. Adv. Op. 102 (Dec. 20, 2018), Tracie Jefcik
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
The Court interpreted the good cause showing requirements in NRS 177.015(2) and defined two of the statute’s key phrases: (1) the phrase “propriety of the appeal” means that an appeal is not taken for the purpose of delay, and (2) the phrase “miscarriage of justice” means that suppression of evidence would significantly impair or terminate the State’s ability to prosecute the case. Finding that the State in this case failed to demonstrate good cause, the Court dismissed the appeal.
State V. Dist. Ct. (Ojeda (Francisco)), 134 Nev. Adv. Op. 94 (Dec. 6, 2018) (En Banc), Myrra Dvorak
State V. Dist. Ct. (Ojeda (Francisco)), 134 Nev. Adv. Op. 94 (Dec. 6, 2018) (En Banc), Myrra Dvorak
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
The Court focused on the issue of whether a district court can grant a motion to compel disclosure of criminal background information of veniremembers gathered by the prosecution. The Court determined that a district court has the authority to order the prosecution to share criminal background information of veniremembers obtained from databases that the defense cannot access.
Rodriguez (Juan) V. State, 134 Nev. Adv. Op. 95 (Dec. 6, 2018) (En Banc), Jessica Story
Rodriguez (Juan) V. State, 134 Nev. Adv. Op. 95 (Dec. 6, 2018) (En Banc), Jessica Story
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
The Court held that NRS 200.481(2)(b) is not an enhancement statute and so a sentence for battery resulting in substantial bodily harm with a consecutive sentence for the older-person enhancement is not double sentencing.
State V. Plunkett, 134 Nev. Adv. Op. 88 (Nov. 15, 2018) (En Banc), Austin Maul
State V. Plunkett, 134 Nev. Adv. Op. 88 (Nov. 15, 2018) (En Banc), Austin Maul
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
The Court held that NRS 212.165(4) imposes criminal liability on nonprisoners who assist prisoners in jail possessing cellphones.
Williams V. State, 134 Nev. Adv. Op. 83 (Oct. 25, 2018), Arthur Burn
Williams V. State, 134 Nev. Adv. Op. 83 (Oct. 25, 2018), Arthur Burn
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
The Court determined that (1) a district court must perform a comprehensive three-step analysis when a defendant challenges the use of race in peremptory strikes and that (2) a district court should hold a hearing when a defendant seeks to admit evidence showing that a minor victim could have contrived sexual abuse allegations.
Warren, Jr. (Joseph) V. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 134 Nev. Adv. Op. 77 (Sep. 27, 2018) (En Banc), James Puccinelli
Warren, Jr. (Joseph) V. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 134 Nev. Adv. Op. 77 (Sep. 27, 2018) (En Banc), James Puccinelli
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
The Court determined that NRS § 177.015(1)(a) authorizes the State to appeal from a justice court dismissal of a criminal complaint because such a decision is a final judgment, and that NRS § 178.562(2) does not limit the State’s remedies to appeal a justice court’s decision to dismiss a criminal complaint because this provision does not mention final judgment.
Ibarra Vs. State, 134 Nev. Adv. Op. 70 (Sept. 13, 2018) (En Banc), Whitney Jones
Ibarra Vs. State, 134 Nev. Adv. Op. 70 (Sept. 13, 2018) (En Banc), Whitney Jones
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
The Court determined a defendant can be convicted of larceny from the person when a defendant fraudulently persuades a person to temporarily hand over their property, when in fact the defendant intends to permanently take the person’s property without the person’s consent for purposes of NRS 205.270(1).
Dunham (John) V. State, 134 Nev. Adv. Op. 68 (Sept. 6, 2018), Katrina Brandhagen
Dunham (John) V. State, 134 Nev. Adv. Op. 68 (Sept. 6, 2018), Katrina Brandhagen
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
The Court determined that the word “resides” in NRS 205.067(5)(b) does not require that the owner of a dwelling live permanently or continuously in the dwelling. The Court also held that the sentence of a maximum of 96 months in prison with parole eligibility after 38 months imposed on the appellant when a jury convicted him of home invasion, was not cruel and unusual punishment.
Mathews V. State, 134 Nev. Adv. Op. 63 (Aug. 23, 2018), Christi Dupont
Mathews V. State, 134 Nev. Adv. Op. 63 (Aug. 23, 2018), Christi Dupont
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
The Court clarified the requirements for the introduction of an expert witness under NRS 50.275. Moreover, the Court concluded that the district court abused its discretion when it improperly applied the Hallmark factors and disqualified Dr. Johnson from testifying. Accordingly, the Court granted the defendant a new trial.
Richard V. State, 134 Nev. Adv. Op. 64 (Aug. 23, 2018), Kaila Patrick
Richard V. State, 134 Nev. Adv. Op. 64 (Aug. 23, 2018), Kaila Patrick
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
The Court determined that a declarant must have testified and have been subject to cross-examination about a specific out-of-court statement for it to be excluded from the definition of hearsay as a prior inconsistent statement or identification. Further, the Court held that the errors of admission made by the district court were harmless.
Rippo V. State, 134 Nev. Adv. Op. 53 (Aug. 2, 2018) (En Banc), Shady Sirsy
Rippo V. State, 134 Nev. Adv. Op. 53 (Aug. 2, 2018) (En Banc), Shady Sirsy
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
The Court held that the appellant’s petition challenging his conviction for two first-degree murders and death sentences was both untimely and successive. Further, it affirmed the district court’s denial of the appellant’s petition as procedurally barred and determined that Rippo did not show good cause and prejudice to excuse the procedural bars to his petition. The United States Supreme Court vacated the Court’s opinion and remanded for further proceedings, reasoning that the Court applied the wrong legal standard as to Rippo’s judicial bias claim. On reconsideration, the Court held that an evidentiary hearing was required with respect to several issues …
Hubbard (Cory) V. State, 134 Nev. Adv. Op. 54 (Aug. 2, 2018) (En Banc), Matthew J. Mckissick
Hubbard (Cory) V. State, 134 Nev. Adv. Op. 54 (Aug. 2, 2018) (En Banc), Matthew J. Mckissick
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
The Court held that intent is automatically at issue for specific-intent crimes. Therefore, criminal defendants need not place intent or absence of mistake at issue before the State seeks to admit prior act evidence if the evidence is relevant to prove an essential element of the offense (i.e., intent for the crime of burglary). However, prior act evidence may still be inadmissible where its minimal probative value is substantially outweighed by the risk of unfair prejudice.
Cooper V. State, 134 Nev. 52 (July 26, 2018) (En Banc), Xheni Ristani
Cooper V. State, 134 Nev. 52 (July 26, 2018) (En Banc), Xheni Ristani
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
The Court invoked its supervisory powers and adopted a rule of admissibility to limit the use of a probationer’s testimony in a subsequent criminal proceeding.
State Of Nevada V. Second Judicial District Court., 134 Nev. Adv. Op. 51 (Jul. 19, 2018), Ronald Evans
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
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
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.
Andrews V. State, 134 Nev. Adv. Op. 12 (Mar. 01, 2018), Samantha Scofield
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.
Jeremias V. State, 134 Nev. Adv. Op. 8 (Mar. 01, 2018), Maliq Kendricks
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.