Law Commons^™

Guidry V. State, 138 Nev. Adv. Op. 39 (June 2, 2022), Candace Mays

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Supreme Court of Nevada, reviewing the case de novo, considered whether the errors committed by the prosecution at trial entitled the appellant to relief from her convictions. The Court held that the ambiguous jury instruction on the count of second-degree murder was a prejudicial error, warranting a reversal of the conviction. As to the charges of robbery, grand larceny, and leaving the scene, for which the appellant was also convicted, claims of prosecutorial misconduct and challenges to the sufficiency of evidence were not sufficient to warrant a reversal. Given the reversal on the second-degree murder charge, however, the Court …

Bennett V. State, 138 Nev. Adv. Op. 29 (Apr. 28, 2022), Anne-Greyson Long

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

Years after a jury sentenced Bennett to death, newly discovered evidence was presented. This case thoroughly explains whether a new evidentiary hearing must be granted. The statutory scheme providing for a petition to establish factual innocence is a relatively new addition to Nevada law.[1] Bennett v. State provided an opportunity to address the statutory provisions that guided the district court’s decision whether to order a hearing on this type of petition. The Court clarified two considerations relevant to the pleading requirements a petition must satisfy under NRS 34.960(2)(b): (1) a petition may rely on a witness’s recantation of trial …

Talking Back In Court, M. Eve Hanan

Scholarly Works

No abstract provided.

Incarcerated Activism During Covid-19, M. Eve Hanan

Scholarly Works

Incarcerated people have a notoriously difficult time advocating for themselves. Like other authoritarian institutions, prisons severely curtail and often punish speech, organizing, and self-advocacy. Also, like other authoritarian institutions, prison administrators are inclined to suppress protest rather than respond to the grounds for protest. Yet, despite impediments to their participation, incarcerated people have organized during the pandemic, advocating for themselves through media channels, public forums, and the courts. Indeed, a dramatic increase in incarcerated activism correlates with the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Just as the COVID-19 pandemic highlights injustice in other areas of criminal legal practices, it reveals both …

Distributed Federalism: The Transformation Of Younger, Anne R. Traum

Scholarly Works

For decades federal courts have remained mostly off limits to civil rights cases challenging the constitutionality of state criminal proceedings. Younger abstention, which requires federal courts to abstain from suits challenging the constitutionality of pending state prosecutions, has blocked plaintiffs from bringing meritorious civil rights cases and insulated local officials and federal courts from having to defend against or decide them. Younger’s reach is broad. It has forced political protestors (from the Vietnam era to Black Lives Matter) to challenge the constitutionality of their arrests and prosecutions within their state criminal proceedings. The doctrine also has made it difficult to …

Valdez-Jimenez V. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct.,136 Nev. Adv. Op. 20 (April 9, 2020), Katrina Weil

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court determined what process is constitutionally required when a district court sets bail in an amount that the defendant cannot afford, resulting in pretrial detention. The Court found that bail may only be imposed where it is necessary to reasonably ensure the defendant’s appearance at court proceedings or to reasonably protect the community. If a defendant remains in custody after arrest they are (1) entitled to an individualized hearing, where (2) the State must prove by clear and convincing evidence that bail, rather than less restrictive conditions, is necessary to ensure the defendant’s appearance at future court proceedings or …

Martinez Guzman V. Second Judicial Dist. Court, 136 Nev. Adv. Op. 12 (Mar. 26, 2020), John Mccormick-Huhn

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court clarified the ambiguity of the meaning “territorial jurisdiction,” a term of art found in NRS 172.105. The Court held that NRS 172.105 incorporates Nevada’s venue statutes and grants a grand jury the authority to “inquire into a [criminal] offense so long as the district court that empaneled the grand jury may appropriately adjudicate the defendant’s guilt for that particular offense.”

Republican Attorneys General Association V. Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, 136 Nev. Adv. Op. 3 (Feb. 20, 2020), Nicholas Hagenkord

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court determined that (1) the district court did not err in denying appellant Republican Attorneys General Association’s (RAGA) petition for a writ of mandamus under the Nevada Public Records Act (NPRA) seeking bodycam footage regarding juveniles and former State Senator Aaron Ford’s interactions with police; and (2) the district court abused its discretion in denying RAGA’s request for other requested records by not assessing whether these records contain any nonconfidential material.

White V. State Of Nevada, 135 Nev. Adv. Op. 67 (Dec. 26, 2019), Katrina Fadda

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

No abstract provided.

Anderson V. State, 135 Nev. Adv. Op. 56 (Nov. 27, 2019), Tayler Bingham

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court determined that (1) when the government relies on the forfeiture exception of the Confrontation Clause to introduce a witness’s out-of-court statements, the burden of proof the litigant must meet is that of preponderance of the evidence; and (2) that a trial court does not abuse its discretion in denying a motion to substitute counsel and thereby violate the Sixth Amendment right to counsel when the trial court holds a Young hearing for each motion and enough evidence indicates there is not a complete breakdown in the attorney-client relationship.

Cabrera V. State, 135 Nev. Adv. Op. 65 (Dec. 26, 2019), Trisha Delos Santos

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court determined that the plain language of NRS § 194.010(8) cannot be interpreted to limit the duress defense with respect to crimes that are not punishable with death, regardless of the relationship between those crimes and another crime that is punishable with death.

High Desert State Prison V. Sanchez, 135 Nev., Adv. Op. 68 (Dec. 26, 2019), Jeff Garrett

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

NRS § 209.4465 does not allow for good time served to be credited for those who commit child lewdness. The Court held that in order for a violation to be a continuous crime, the statute must be explicitly label the crime as continuous. Here, Respondent’s time served had been properly calculated by the district court because Respondent’s violation was codified as a one-time offense and occurred before the 2007 amendment to NRS § 209.4465. The language of the violated statutes define attempted lewdness with a child to be a one-time offense and not a continuous offense. Furthermore, the State’s assertion …

Poasa V. State, 135 Nev. Adv. Op. 57 (Nov. 27, 2019), Gillian Block

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court reaffirmed its holding in Kuykendall v. State, interpreting NRS 176.055(1) to require sentencing courts to award credit for time served in presentence confinement.

Gathrite V. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 135 Nev. Adv. Op. 54 (Nov. 7, 2019), Skylar Arakawa-Pamphilon

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

For purposes of NRS 172.135(2), evidence that has been suppressed in justice court proceedings on a felony complaint is not “legal evidence,” and therefore, may not be presented to a grand jury. The Court will grant an exception to this rule if the suppression was reversed before the grand jury proceedings.

Witter V. State, 135 Nev. Adv. Op. 73444 (Nov. 14, 2019), John Bays

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court determined that (1) a judgment of conviction containing a restitution provision must contain the specific amount of restitution required; (2) a judgment of conviction containing an indeterminate restitution provision is not a final judgement for purposes of appeal or for purposes of triggering the deadline for filing a habeas petition; and (3) the principle of finality requires that even when such an error is made, if the defendant treats the judgment as final by litigating, the defendant is estopped from later arguing that judgment was not final and that subsequent proceedings were null and void for lack of …

Newson V. State, 135 Nev. Adv. Op. 50 (Oct. 10, 2019), Richard Young

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court determined although the district court has broad discretion to settle jury instructions, the failure to instruct the jury on a defendant’s theory of a case that is supported by any evidence warrants reversal unless the error was harmless.

State Bd. Of Parole Comm’Rs V. Second Judicial Dist. Court, 135 Nev. Adv. Op. 53 (Oct. 24, 2019) (En Banc), Dallas Anselmo

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court confronted several issues in this methodical decision. The Court addressed standing and discretionary review in the context of writ petitions. It next analyzes and determines the applicable version of a particular NRS section. Finally, the Court interprets the applicable version of the statute. The opinion culminates in the granting of a writ of mandamus petition for the Parole Board to correct an inaccurate application of law at the district court level.

Bowser V. State Of Nevada, 135 Nev. Adv. Op. 15 (May 16, 2019), Andrew Brown

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court overruled precedent which held that a presumption of vindictiveness applies when a judge imposes a longer sentence after a new trial.

Menendez-Cordero V. State, 135 Nev. Adv. Op. 29 (Jul 25, 2019), Nick Hagenkord

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court concluded that (1) the empanelment of an anonymous jury does not, without actual prejudice, infringe on a defendant’s constitutional rights and the district court satisfied the abuse-of-discretion standard adopted; (2) the district court need not instruct a jury that is responsible for imposing a sentence in a first-degree murder case under NRS 175.552 about the effects of a deadly weapon enhancement; and (3) there was no abuse of discretion in the district court’s decision to admit Menendez-Cordero’s threats as consciousness-of-guilt evidence.

Anderson (Arnold) V. State, 135 Nev. Adv. Op. 37 (Sept. 5, 2019), Alexandra Matloff

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court held that if a trial court determines by a preponderance of the evidence that a witness is unable to testify because the defendant wrongfully procured the witness’s unavailability and acted with intent to do so, the forfeiture-by-wrongdoing exception can be applied in order to deny a defendant’s rights under the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment. The Court also held that in determining whether the forfeiture-by-wrongdoing exception applies, the trial court must hear the opposing parties’ arguments in the absence of a jury.

Azucena V. State Of Nevada, 135 Nev. Ad. Op. (Sep. 5, 2019), Mia Mallette

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court determined that the trial judge’s actions during jury selection rose to the level of judicial misconduct in response to a prospective juror indicating she could not be unbiased. These actions could have impeded Azucena’s right to a fair trial with an impartial jury as the court feared that the potential jurors would not have been able to answer candidly about any biases they may have had.

Hager V. State, 135 Nev. Adv. Op. 34 (Aug. 29, 2019), Brittney Lehtinen

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court determined that (1) Defendants who successfully complete mental health specialty court diversion programs pursuant to NRS § 176A.250–265 are not “adjudicated mentally ill” under NRS § 202.360(2)(1); and (2) that the jury should have been instructed that under NRS § 202.360(1)(d), an “unlawful user” is someone who regularly uses substances over a period of time consistent with their possession of a firearm.

Andersen V. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 135 Nev. Adv. Op. 42 (Sept. 12, 2019) (En Banc), Erika Smolyar

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

In light of recent statutes limiting the right to bear arms for people convicted of misdemeanor battery constituting domestic violence, the Court determined that because the Legislature reclassified misdemeanor battery in that context to constitute a serious offense, those convicted of it are entitled to a jury trial.

Incapacitating Errors: Sentencing And The Science Of Change, M. Eve Hanan

Scholarly Works

Despite widespread support for shifting sentencing policy from “tough on crime” to “smart on crime,” reflected in legislation like the federal First Step Act, the scope of criminal justice reform has been limited. We continue to engage in practices that permanently incapacitate people while carving out only limited niches of sentencing reform for special groups like first-time nonviolent offenders and adolescents. We cannot, however, be “smart on crime” without a theory of punishment that supports second chances for the broadest range of people convicted of crimes.

This Article posits that the cultural belief that adults do not change poses a …

About A Revolution: Toward Integrated Treatment In Drug And Mental Health Courts, Sara Gordon

Scholarly Works

This Article examines specialty courts, including drug, alcohol, and mental health courts, which proponents claim created a revolution in criminal justice. Defendants whose underlying crime is the result of a substance use disorder or a mental health disorder can choose to be diverted into a specialty court, where they receive treatment instead of punishment. Many of these individuals, however, do not just suffer from a substance use disorder or a mental health disorder; instead, many have a “co-occurring disorder.” Approximately 8.9 million American adults have co-occurring mental health and substance use disorders, and almost half of individuals who meet diagnostic …

Granada-Ruiz V. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 134 Nev. Adv. Op. 57 (Aug. 2, 2018) (En Banc), Sara Schreiber

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court concluded that double jeopardy did not prohibit the appellant’s retrial because he had implied consent to the district court’s declaration of a mistrial. Further, it held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding manifest necessity to declare a mistrial. Thus, the Court denied the appellant’s petition for a writ of mandamus that would direct the district court to grant his motion to dismiss and bar his re-prosecution.

Sayedzada V. State, 134 Nev. Adv. Op. 38 (May 24, 2018), Sara Schreiber

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court held that a party waives the right challenge a juror’s presence on appeal when the argument is based on facts known during voir dire; the party consciously made the decision to not pursue, or abandoned, a challenge for cause; and the party accepted the juror’s presence on the jury. The Court then examined the issue of juror bias, and explained the differences between actual, implied, and inferable bias.

Moore V. State Of Nevada, 134 Nev. Adv. Op. 35 (May 17, 2018), Casey Lee

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

No abstract provided.

Morgan Vs. State Of Nevada., 134 Nev. Adv. Op. 27 (May 3, 2018), Ronald Evans

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court determined that a defendant is not entitled to cross examine examiners who find him incompetent at a competency hearing where neither party subpoenaed the examiner to appear at said competency hearing. The Court further decided that the State’s failure to transport an incompetent Defendant to competency treatment within seven days of receiving a court order did not warrant the dismissal of charges against the Defendant. The Court also held that the District Court did not commit a structural error when Defendant moved to strike the jury venire. The Court went on to decide that Defendant was not entitled …

State V. Sample, 134 Nev. Adv. Op. 23 (Apr. 5, 2018), Sara Schreiber

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

Gregory Frank Allen Sample (“Sample”) was arrested for driving under the influence. He had failed a preliminary breath test (“PBT”). The results of the failed PBT were used to obtain a search warrant for an evidentiary blood draw. The district court suppressed the PBT results because it concluded that the results were obtained in violation of Sample’s Fourth Amendment rights. The district court also suppressed the evidentiary blood draw because it was the fruit of an illegal search. The Court held that the district court erred in invalidating the telephonic search warrant and that the evidentiary blood draw should not …