Evidence Commons^™

Mayo V. Eigh. Jud, Dist. Ct., 123 Nev. Adv. Op. 79 (Nov. 23, 2016), Alex Velto

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court found that the district court did not err when it found no violation of NRS 172.145(2). The Court interpreted NRS 172.145(2), which creates a duty on district attorneys to submit evidence to a grand jury if they are “aware” it will “explain away the charge.” The Court determined that a district attorney must be “aware” evidence has exculpatory value before there is a duty to present the evidence to a grand jury. The district attorney is not obligated to present exculpatory evidence it possesses but does not recognize as exculpatory. In the case at issue, because the district …

Khoury V. Seastrand, 132 Nev. Adv. Op. 52 (July 28, 2016), Ronni Boskovich

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court considered three consolidated appeals from a district court judgment, pursuant to a jury verdict, and post-judgment orders awarding costs and denying a new trial in a personal injury action. While the Court addressed numerous issues, the following three questions comprised the bulk of the consolidated appeals: (1) whether an attorney may ask prospective jurors questions concerning a specific verdict amount to determine potential bias or prejudice; (2) whether repeatedly asking questions about that specific amount results in jury indoctrination warranting a mistrial; and (3) when a district court abuses its discretion in dismissing jurors for cause under Jitnan …

State V. Carroll, 132 Nev. Adv. Op. 23 (Apr. 7, 2016), Jessie Folkestad

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

Defendant Deangelo Carroll appealed from a conviction for conspiracy to commit murder and first-degree murder with use of a deadly weapon. The Supreme Court of Nevada found the district court erred in denying Carroll’s motion to suppress his statements to police because the police subjected Carroll to a custodial interrogation, without advising him of his Miranda rights. The Court affirmed however, finding the error harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.

Rish V. Simao, 132 Nev. Adv. Op. 17 (Mar. 17, 2016), Heather Caliguire

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Nevada Supreme Court held that the District Court wrongly excluded evidence of low-impact defense when it required a biomechanical expert testify about the nature of the accident, erroneously interpreting Hallmark v. Eldgridge Instead, Hallmark requires sufficient foundation for admission of testimony and evidence, specifically excluding a biomechanical expert’s testimony under NRS 50.275. The Court additionally held that the District Court erred when it ultimately struck the defendant’s answer for violations of the pretrial order precluding defendant from raising a minor or low impact defense.

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.