Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 7 of 7
Full-Text Articles in Law
Bowman V. State, 132 Nev. Adv. Op. 74 (Oct. 27, 2016), Marco Luna
Bowman V. State, 132 Nev. Adv. Op. 74 (Oct. 27, 2016), Marco Luna
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
A district court's failure to provide a jury instruction prohibiting jurors from conducting independent research, investigations, or experiments in any criminal or civil case constitutes error. Though likely harmless, the resulting prejudice may constitute reversible error.
Mason V. State, 132 Nev. Adv. Op. 42 (June 16, 2016), Shannon Diaz
Mason V. State, 132 Nev. Adv. Op. 42 (June 16, 2016), Shannon Diaz
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
The Court determined that pursuant to NRS 176.035(1), a district court must pronounce aggregate minimum and maximum terms of imprisonment in a defendant’s judgment of conviction.
Sparks V. Bare, 132 Nev. Adv. Op. 43 (Jun. 16, 2016), Emily Haws
Sparks V. Bare, 132 Nev. Adv. Op. 43 (Jun. 16, 2016), Emily Haws
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
The Court determined under NRS 189.030(1) that (1) “a misdemeanor appellant is responsible for requesting transcripts and, if not indigent, paying for those transcripts;” and (2) that “the district court has the inherent authority to dismiss a misdemeanor appeal where the appellant fails to prosecute an appeal or comply with the court’s orders.”
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.
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.
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 Lisle V. State, 131 Nev. Adv. Op. 39 (June 25, 2015), Adam Wynott
Summary Of Lisle V. State, 131 Nev. Adv. Op. 39 (June 25, 2015), Adam Wynott
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
The Court held that the petitions filed by the appellant, Kevin James Lisle (Lisle), were procedurally barred. The Court determined that a petitioner cannot present new evidence of mitigating circumstances in order to prove actual innocence of the death penalty. The Court determined that the claims of Lisle did not warrant relief and upheld the district court ruling.