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

Law Commons

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

Criminal Procedure

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

Articles 1 - 7 of 7

Full-Text Articles in Law

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.


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.


Quisano V. State, 132 Nev. Adv. Op. 9 (February 18, 2016), Michael Hua Feb 2016

Quisano V. State, 132 Nev. Adv. Op. 9 (February 18, 2016), Michael Hua

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

This court affirmed an appeal from a judgment of conviction, pursuant to an Alford plea, of voluntary manslaughter and child abuse, neglect, or endangerment with substantial bodily harm holding:

(1) Brady violations do not occur when the evidence in question is not favorable to the defendant;

(2) Prosecutors have a strict duty to disclose under their own open-file policy until sentencing proceedings; and,

(3) Media outlets require a written by the district court to electronically cover proceedings unless nonconstitutional or harmless error results in such coverage.


Newman V. State, 132 Nev. Adv. Op. 31 (April 28, 2016), Andrea Orwoll Jan 2016

Newman V. State, 132 Nev. Adv. Op. 31 (April 28, 2016), Andrea Orwoll

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court reviewed two consolidated appeals involving sentencing concerns, which stemmed from a district court judgment revoking probation and a district court judgment of conviction pursuant to a guilty plea. The Court dismissed the appeal of the probation revocation because appellant did not present any cogent arguments on that issue and because she had already been released from the nine-month sentence, rendering the appeal moot. As to the judgment of conviction, the Court affirmed. The Court held that a court may consider a defendant’s status as a pregnant drug addict in sentencing, especially if the status brought up by ...


Taylor Vs. State, 132 Nev. Adv. Op. 27 (April. 21, 2016), Marta Kurshumova Jan 2016

Taylor Vs. State, 132 Nev. Adv. Op. 27 (April. 21, 2016), Marta Kurshumova

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court determined that (1) access and usage of historical cell phone connection data without a warrant does not violate the Fourth Amendment if the “specific and articulable facts” standard is met, (2) the out-of-court and in-court identifications did not violate Taylor’s constitutional rights to due process of law, (3) the prosecutorial conduct during closing arguments did not violate Taylor’s Sixth Amendment right to a fair trial or Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination, and (4) there was sufficient evidence at trial to support the jury's finding of guilt.


State V. Harris, 131 Nev. Adv. Op. 56, Ashleigh Wise Jul 2015

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).