Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- Criminal Law (5)
- Criminal law (4)
- Criminal procedure (3)
- CRIMINAL LAW (2)
- Habeas corpus (2)
-
- Alford plea (1)
- Bifurcation (1)
- Burglary (1)
- Constitutional law (1)
- EVIDENCE (1)
- Evidence (1)
- Felony (1)
- Force (1)
- Guilty plea (1)
- Information by Affidavit (1)
- Involuntary plea (1)
- JURY SELECTION (1)
- JUVENILE SEARCH AND SEIZURE (1)
- Jury instructions (1)
- Jury questions (1)
- RAPE SHIELD (1)
- Right to a fair trial (1)
- Show-up identification (1)
- Voir dire (1)
Articles 1 - 13 of 13
Full-Text Articles in Law
Barber V. State, 131 Nev. Adv, Op. 103 (December 31, 2015), Ronni N. Boscovich
Barber V. State, 131 Nev. Adv, Op. 103 (December 31, 2015), Ronni N. Boscovich
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
The Court considered an appeal from a district court conviction. The Court reversed the Eighth Judicial District Court’s judgment of conviction, pursuant to a jury verdict of burglary and grand larceny. The juvenile court retains jurisdiction over Barber because the legislation did not include language regarding jurisdiction stripping or dismissal requirements. However, the Court reversed the judgment because the prosecution presented insufficient evidence to support Barber’s conviction.
Gonzalez V. State, 131 Nev. Adv. Op. 99 (Dec. 31, 2015), Chelsea Stacey
Gonzalez V. State, 131 Nev. Adv. Op. 99 (Dec. 31, 2015), Chelsea Stacey
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
The Court, sitting en banc, determined that by failing to answer questions from the jury that suggested confusion on a significant element of the law, failing to give an accomplice-distrust instruction, and by not bifurcating the guilt phase from the gang enhancement phase the district court violated the defendant’s right to a fair trial.
State V. Boston, 131 Nev. Adv. Op. 98 (Dec. 31, 2015), Nancy Snow
State V. Boston, 131 Nev. Adv. Op. 98 (Dec. 31, 2015), Nancy Snow
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
The Court considers an appeal from a district court order granting a post-conviction petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Specifically, the Court considered whether the holding in Graham applies when an aggregate sentence imposed against a juvenile defender convicted of more than one nonhomicide offense is the equivalent of a life-without-parole sentence. The Court held that it does.
Newell V. State Of Nevada, 131 Nev. Adv. Op. 97 (December 24, 2015), Douglas H. Smith
Newell V. State Of Nevada, 131 Nev. Adv. Op. 97 (December 24, 2015), Douglas H. Smith
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
The holding of State v. Weddell is extended. Responding with deadly force to the commission of a felony per NRS § 200.160 is justified only when the person poses a threat of serious bodily injury. Short of such a threat, the amount of force used must be reasonable and necessary under the circumstances.
Moultrie V. State, 131 Nev. Adv. Op. 93 (Dec. 24, 2015), Cassandra Ramey
Moultrie V. State, 131 Nev. Adv. Op. 93 (Dec. 24, 2015), Cassandra Ramey
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
The Court of Appeals determined that the district court did not abuse its discretion by allowing the State to file an information by affidavit more than 15 days after the preliminary examination concluded, when the justice court committed an “egregious error,” and “the defendant was discharged but not prejudiced by the delay.” Further, the Court defines “egregious error” as when “a charge was erroneously dismissed or a defendant was erroneously discharged based on a magistrate’s error.” Due to the justice court’s egregious errors in the preliminary examination that resulted in appellant’s discharge, the Court found that the district court was …
Berry V. State, 131 Nev. Adv. Op. No. 96 (Dec. 24, 2015), Brittany L. Shipp
Berry V. State, 131 Nev. Adv. Op. No. 96 (Dec. 24, 2015), Brittany L. Shipp
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
The issue before the Court was an appeal from a district court order dismissing a post-conviction petition for writ of habeas corpus. The Court reversed and remanded holding that the district court improperly discounted the declarations in support of the appellant’s petition, which included a confession of another suspect, whom the petitioner implicated as the real perpetrator at trial. The Court held that these declarations were sufficient to merit discovery, and an evidentiary hearing on Petitioner Berry’s gateway actual innocence claim.
State V. Merlino, 131 Nev. Adv. Op. No. 65 (Sept. 10, 2015), Brittany L. Shipp
State V. Merlino, 131 Nev. Adv. Op. No. 65 (Sept. 10, 2015), Brittany L. Shipp
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
The issue before the Court was whether selling stolen property through a retractable sliding tray on a pawn shop’s drive-through window satisfied the element of unlawful entry of a building as defined in the burglary statute. The Court held that when the outer boundary of a building is not self-evident from the shape and contours of the structure itself, courts must apply California’s “reasonable belief” test which legally defines the outer boundary to include, “any element that encloses an area into which a reasonable person would believe that a member of the general public could not pass without authorization.”
State V. Smith, 131 Nev. Adv. Op. 63 (Sept. 3, 2015), Jessie Vargas
State V. Smith, 131 Nev. Adv. Op. 63 (Sept. 3, 2015), Jessie Vargas
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
Defendant Terrance Reed Smith entered a no contest plea to one count of child abuse resulting in substantial bodily harm. The Supreme Court of Nevada held Smith’s plea was involuntary because the plea was made in response to acts of coercion by the Washoe County Department of Social Services (“DDS”).
Cassinelli V. State Of Nevada, 131 Nev. Adv. Op. 62 131(Aug. 27, 2015), Mackenzie Warren
Cassinelli V. State Of Nevada, 131 Nev. Adv. Op. 62 131(Aug. 27, 2015), Mackenzie Warren
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
The Court of Appeals determined that (1) the district court erred by ruling that Cassinelli was not eligible for alcohol treatment under NRS § 458.300(1)(d); (2) the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Cassinelli’s request for assignment to a program of treatment; (3) the plea agreement was not breached and the prosecutor did not engage in misconduct at sentencing; (4) the district court did not err by refusing Cassinelli an opportunity to cross-examine the victim during her impact statement at sentencing; (5) Cassinelli’s sentence was illegal.
Johnson V. State Of Nevada, 131 Nev. Adv. Op. 58, Joseph Meissner
Johnson V. State Of Nevada, 131 Nev. Adv. Op. 58, Joseph Meissner
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
The Court heard an appeal from a sentence and conviction following a jury trial of one count of conspiracy to commit robbery, two counts of robbery, and one count of battery with intent to commit a crime. Affirmed.
Summary Of Barral V. State, 131 Nev. Adv. Op. 52 (July 23, 2015), Aleem Dhalla
Summary Of Barral V. State, 131 Nev. Adv. Op. 52 (July 23, 2015), Aleem Dhalla
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
Defendant Dustin James Barral was convicted of two counts of sexual assault with a minor under 14 years of age by a jury. The Supreme Court of Nevada held that the trial court committed a structural error by failing to administer an oath or affrimation to the jury panel prior to commencing voir dire. This error required reversal and a new trial.
Summary Of Guitron (Miguel) V. State, 131 Nev. Adv. Op. 27 (May 21, 2015), Aleem Dhalla
Summary Of Guitron (Miguel) V. State, 131 Nev. Adv. Op. 27 (May 21, 2015), Aleem Dhalla
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
The Court determined that (1) the State presented sufficient evidence for a jury to convict Guitron of incest and sexual assault, (2) the district court did err by not allowing Guitron to introduce evidence of the victims sexual knowledge, but this error was harmless, (3) the district court did err refusing to give the jury Guitron’s requested inverse elements instruction, but this error was also harmless, and (4) Guitron could not show that the district court erred by denying his Batson challenge.
Summary Of In Re: L.A.W, 131 Nev. Adv. Op. 24 (May 7, 2015), Jessica Gandy
Summary Of In Re: L.A.W, 131 Nev. Adv. Op. 24 (May 7, 2015), Jessica Gandy
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
The Court determined, pursuant to the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, as well as Article 1, § 18 of the Nevada Constitution, a public school cannot condition a student’s access to a free public education upon consent to random searches of his person and property. Evidence gathered from random administrative searches must be suppressed in criminal proceedings.