Criminal Law Commons^™

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.

A.J. V. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 28 (June 1, 2017), Briana Martinez

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

NRS 62C.240 is triggered when circumstances surrounding a juvenile’s arrest plainly demonstrate that the juvenile was arrested for prostitution or solicitation even if the juvenile is charged with offenses other than prostitution or solicitation.

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).

Solid V. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 17 (Apr. 27, 2017), Hunter Davidson

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court interpreted Nevada Supreme Court Rules (“SCR” or the “Rules”) on Electronic Coverage of Court Proceedings: (1) My Entertainment TV (MET) is a “news reporter” under SCR 229(1)(c) because it collects, edits, and publishes footage concerning local events for public dissemination; (2) Clark County court proceedings footage has the educational or informational purpose required by SCR 241; (3) camera presence in the court room alone does not overcome the presumption permitting electronic recording of court proceedings under SCR 230; and (4) contract provisions must be read together, and the result should comport with the SCR on electronic coverage of …

Cooperative Federalism: Nevada’S Indigent Defense Crisis And The Role Of Federal Courts In Protecting The Right To Counsel In Non-Capital Cases, Randolph Fiedler, Megan Hoffman, Jonathan Kirshbaum

Nevada Law Journal Forum

In Martinez v. Ryan, the United States Supreme Court held the ineffective assistance of post-conviction counsel, or the lack of representation in a state post-conviction proceeding, provides cause to allow a federal habeas petitioner to overcome a procedural default on an ineffective assistance of trial counsel claim. This represented a radical shift in the criminal justice system. Prior to Martinez, state post-conviction proceedings—the typical mechanism for a criminal defendant to challenge the performance of his trial attorney—were not heavily scrutinized. It was understood and accepted that defendants did not have the right to counsel in these post-conviction proceedings. Whether a …

Statewide Rules Of Criminal Procedure: A 50 State Review, Emily Dyer, Chelsea Stacey, Adrian Viesca

Nevada Law Journal Forum

Nevada is amongst the minority of states without statewide criminal procedure rules. Statewide rules are important because they promote fairness, regularity, and transparency regardless of where in the state a criminal case is being adjudicated and who it is being adjudicated in front of. This report intends to compare the varying states’ criminal procedure rules, to provide Nevada’s legal community with an awareness of how rules can be structured, what rules are included, and how rules interact with statutes and other court rules. If Nevada chooses to follow in the path of the forty-seven states and develop statewide criminal procedure …

Renteria-Novoa (Guillermo) V. State, 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 11 (March 30, 2017), Briana Martinez

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The district court abused its discretion in declining to appoint postonviction counsel to appellant. Appointment of counsel under NRS § 34.750(1) is not necessarily dependent upon whether a pro se petitioner raised claims that have merit or warrant an evidentiary hearing. Language barriers may deprive appellants of a meaningful opportunity to present his or her claims, and should therefore be taken into consideration.

Juvenile Justice Research To Policy And The Case Of Fines, Alex R. Piquero

Nevada Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Barry Feld: An Intellectual History Of A Juvenile Court Reformer, Martin Guggenheim

Nevada Law Journal

No abstract provided.

On The Ends And Means Of Protecting Youth In Juvenile Courts, Franklin E. Zimring

Nevada Law Journal

No abstract provided.

My Life In Crime: An Intellectual History Of The Juvenile Court, Barry C. Feld

Nevada Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Championing Children's Rights In Nevada, 2000-2015: The Thomas & Mack Juvenile Justice Clinic As Change Agent, Mary C. Berkheiser

Nevada Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Pursuing Gault, David S. Tanenhaus, Eric C. Nystrom

Nevada Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Hard Bargaining In Plea Bargaining: When Do Prosecutors Cross The Line?, Cynthia Alkon

Nevada Law Journal

Well over 90 percent of all criminal cases in the United States are resolved by plea bargaining and not by trial. This means that how plea bargaining works impacts nearly every criminal defendant. However, there are few restrictions to protect defendants in the negotiating process. One serious problem is that prosecutors regularly use hard bargaining tactics such as exploding offers, threats to add enhancements, take-it-or-leave-it offers, and threats to seek the death penalty. These hard bargaining tactics contribute to the often highly coercive atmosphere of plea bargaining that can lead innocent defendants to plead guilty. Pressure to plead guilty can …

Joinder, Conspiracy, And Racketeering: Charging Issues Arising In The Prosecution Of Staged-Accident Insurance Schemes, Michael C. Kovac

Nevada Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Wrestling Tyrants: Do We Need An International Criminal Justice System?, Christopher L. Blakesley

Scholarly Works

Prof. Christopher L. Blakesley delivered this keynote address at the Crimes Without Borders: In Search of an International Justice System Symposium, held at the McGeorge School of Law in the spring of 2016.

The Use And Abuse Of Mutual-Support Programs In Drug Courts, Sara Gordon

Scholarly Works

There is a large gap between what we know about the disease of addiction and its appropriate treatment, and the treatment received by individuals who are ordered into treatment as a condition of participation in drug court. Most medical professionals are not appropriately trained about addiction and most addiction treatment providers do not have the education and training necessary to provide appropriate evidence-based services to individuals who are referred by drug courts for addiction treatment. This disconnect between our understanding of addiction and available addiction treatment has wide-reaching impact for individuals who attempt to receive medical care for addiction in …

Leavitt V. State, 132 Nev. Adv. Op. 83 (Dec. 29, 2016) (Per Curiam), Brent Resh

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court expressly repudiated the Ninth Circuit’s interpretation of Nevada law in Riley v. McDaniel and therefore found that Riley cannot serve as the basis for an argument that good cause exists to overcome a procedural default in filing a petition for a writ of habeas corpus.

Mayo V. Eigh. Jud, Dist. Ct., 123 Nev. Adv. Op. 79 (Nov. 23, 2016), Alex Velto

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court found that the district court did not err when it found no violation of NRS 172.145(2). The Court interpreted NRS 172.145(2), which creates a duty on district attorneys to submit evidence to a grand jury if they are “aware” it will “explain away the charge.” The Court determined that a district attorney must be “aware” evidence has exculpatory value before there is a duty to present the evidence to a grand jury. The district attorney is not obligated to present exculpatory evidence it possesses but does not recognize as exculpatory. In the case at issue, because the district …

Sindelar V. State, 132 Nev. Adv. Op. 68 (Sept. 29, 2016), Skyler Sullivan

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

In Nevada, if a person is convicted three times within seven years for driving under the influence (DUI), the third conviction is a category B felony.2 The Court held that a felony DUI conviction in Utah, which occurs upon a person’s third DUI conviction within ten years, can be included as a past conviction in a later DUI offense in Nevada to make the offense a category B felony under NRS 484.410 because the conduct required to violate the Utah law is “the same or similar” as that required to violate the Nevada law.

Manning V. State, 132 Nev. Adv. Op. 67 (September 15, 2016), Andrew Clark

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

A request for a jury instruction on a lesser-included offense is sufficient if there is any evidence the defendant can be convicted of the lesser crime. Failure to give such an instruction is reversible error. Further, although NRS 175.161(6) allows district courts to settle jury instructions in chambers, district courts should solicit written copies of proposed jury instructions to ensure a clear record on appeal.

State V. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct. (Schneider), 132 Nev. Adv. Op. 59 (Aug. 12, 2016), Ping Chang

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court held that the district court abused its discretion when overturning a misdemeanor driving under the influence conviction by failing to consider the state’s evidence of the defendant’s guilt.

Mary Lou Cornella V. Churchill County, Et Al., 132 Nev. Adv. Op. 58 (August 12, 2016), Stephanie Glantz

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

No abstract provided.

Martinez-Hernandez V. The State Of Nevada, 132 Nev. Adv. Op. 61 (Aug. 12, 2016), Angela Lee

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Nevada Supreme Court determined that (1) if collateral consequences of a criminal conviction exist, a post-conviction petition for a writ of habeas corpus challenging the validity of a judgment of conviction, filed while imprisoned, is not moot once the petitioner is released, and (2) a criminal conviction creates a presumption that collateral consequences exist.

Mcnamara V. State, 132 Nev. Adv. Op. 60 (August 12, 2016), Annie Avery

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court determined that (1) the state of Nevada has territorial jurisdiction under NRS 171.020 when a defendant has criminal intent and he or she performs any act in this state in furtherance of that criminal intent; (2) territorial jurisdiction is a question of law for the court, not a question of fact for the jury; (3) the State bears the burden of proving territorial jurisdiction by a preponderance of the evidence; and (4) omitting a lesser offense on a jury form is not a reversible error where the jury is properly instructed on the lesser offense.

Washington V. State, 132 Nev. Adv. Op. 65 (Aug. 12, 2016), Elise Conlin

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court determined that 1) multiple convictions under NRS 202.285(1) are not redundant because the word discharges illustrates the legislature’s intent to separately punish each violation of the statute; 2) the State sufficiently proved beyond a reasonable doubt to the jury the charges against Washington; and 3) using the term “unnamed coconspirator” is allowed in a conspiracy charge and the identity of the unnamed does not need to be proven in order to charge other.

Steve Dell Mcneill V. The State Of Nevada, 132 Nev. Adv. Op. 54 (July 28, 2016), Adrian Viesca

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Supreme Court determined that the plain language of NRS 213.1243 does not grant the State Board of Parole Commissioners authority to impose additional conditions not enumerated in the statute when supervising sex offenders on lifetime supervision.

Blankenship V. State, 132 Nev. Ad. Op 50 (Jul. 21, 2016), Heather Armantrout

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court considered whether scoring errors in criminal defendants’ Probation Success Probability (PSP) forms constituted “impalpable or highly suspect evidence,” thereby adversely influencing the Division of Parole and Probation’s (the Division) sentencing recommendations. The Court affirmed one criminal defendant’s judgment of conviction (Docket No. 66118), but it vacated his sentence and remanded for a new sentencing hearing. It held that the district court abused its discretion and that defendant’s sentence was prejudiced because the district court relied on an erroneous PSP form in reaching its sentencing decision. It affirmed the judgment of conviction and sentence of another criminal defendant (Docket …

Castaneda V. State Of Nevada, 132 Nev. Adv. Op. 44 (June 16, 2016), Chelsea Finnegan

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

Appellant was convicted of 15 counts of child pornography under NRS 200.730. Appellant contested 14 of the 15 charges, arguing that his possession of 15 images of child pornography constituted only one violation. The Court agreed and determined that prosecuting each image or depiction of child pornography as a separate charge under NRS 200.730 is not what the legislature intended. The statute should not be read to charge each “possession” as one violation. The Court reversed 14 of the charges.

Taming The Wild West: Using Unsecured Bail Bonds In Nevada's Pretrial-Release Program, Hayley E. Miller

Nevada Law Journal

No abstract provided.