Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 6 of 6
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.
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.
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 …
Valenti V. Nev. Dep’T Of Motor Vehicles, 131 Nev. Adv. Op. 87 (Nov. 5, 2015), Shannon Diaz
Valenti V. Nev. Dep’T Of Motor Vehicles, 131 Nev. Adv. Op. 87 (Nov. 5, 2015), Shannon Diaz
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
The Court determined that a “chemist” as defined by NRS § 50.320must be qualified as an expert in a Nevada court of record prior to the admission of his or her affidavit attesting to an individual’s blood-alcohol concentration in a driver’s license revocation hearing
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 Mitchell V. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 131 Nev. Adv. Op. 63076 (Apr. 30 2015), Stacy Newman
Summary Of Mitchell V. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 131 Nev. Adv. Op. 63076 (Apr. 30 2015), Stacy Newman
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
Original petition for a writ of mandamus directing the district court to sustain the privileges asserted by a defendant doctor in a medical malpractice case to his personal counseling and treatment records was granted and denied in part. The court determined 1) Mitchell’s family and marital therapy records were privileged 2) Mitchell’s doctor-patient records were subject to NRS 49.245(3) patient-litigation exception, but 3) the doctor-patient records should have been reviewed in camera by the district court before discovery.