Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 4 of 4
Full-Text Articles in Law
Alotaibi V. State, 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 81 (Nov. 9, 2017) (En Banc), Brendan Mcleod
Alotaibi V. State, 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 81 (Nov. 9, 2017) (En Banc), Brendan Mcleod
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
The Court clarified that when an element goes only to punishment and is not essential to a finding of guilt, it is not an element of the offense for purposes of determining whether a lesser-included-offense instruction is warranted pursuant to NRS 175.501. Further, the Court determined that where a statute provides alternative ways of committing an uncharged offense, the elements of only one of those alternatives needs to be included in the charged offense for the uncharged offense to be a lesser-included offense.
Anselmo V. Bisbee, 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 45 (Jun. 29, 2017), Marco Luna
Anselmo V. Bisbee, 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 45 (Jun. 29, 2017), Marco Luna
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
The Nevada Parole Board can deny parole for any reason authorized by regulation or statute. However, inmates do have a statutory right to have a parole hearing under NRS 213.140(1). Therefore, in limited cases where the Nevada Parole Board clearly misapplied its own internal guidelines in assessing whether to grant parole to an inmate, a new parole hearing is warranted.
Pimentel V. State, 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 31 (June 22, 2017), Ping Chang
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.
Stewart V. State, 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 20 (May 4, 2017), Margarita Elias
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).