Criminal Law Commons^™

Defending The Spirit: The Right To Self-Defense Against Psychological Assault, Kindaka J. Sanders

Nevada Law Journal

The law criminalizes individuals who physically resist emotional or psychological violence, even though emotional injuries can cause greater harm than their physical counterparts. As the law exists today, if a victim of extreme psychological and emotional violence meets that violence with comparatively minor physical force, he or she risks criminal conviction while the emotional aggressor will most likely be legally protected. This article suggests that the legally accepted view of harm is outmoded and should be updated to reflect the accepted realities in current psychological and sociological science. I argue that a self-defense instruction is warranted when an individual uses …

Mathews V. State, 134 Nev. Adv. Op. 63 (Aug. 23, 2018), Christi Dupont

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court clarified the requirements for the introduction of an expert witness under NRS 50.275. Moreover, the Court concluded that the district court abused its discretion when it improperly applied the Hallmark factors and disqualified Dr. Johnson from testifying. Accordingly, the Court granted the defendant a new trial.

Richard V. State, 134 Nev. Adv. Op. 64 (Aug. 23, 2018), Kaila Patrick

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court determined that a declarant must have testified and have been subject to cross-examination about a specific out-of-court statement for it to be excluded from the definition of hearsay as a prior inconsistent statement or identification. Further, the Court held that the errors of admission made by the district court were harmless.

Rippo V. State, 134 Nev. Adv. Op. 53 (Aug. 2, 2018) (En Banc), Shady Sirsy

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court held that the appellant’s petition challenging his conviction for two first-degree murders and death sentences was both untimely and successive. Further, it affirmed the district court’s denial of the appellant’s petition as procedurally barred and determined that Rippo did not show good cause and prejudice to excuse the procedural bars to his petition. The United States Supreme Court vacated the Court’s opinion and remanded for further proceedings, reasoning that the Court applied the wrong legal standard as to Rippo’s judicial bias claim. On reconsideration, the Court held that an evidentiary hearing was required with respect to several issues …

Hubbard (Cory) V. State, 134 Nev. Adv. Op. 54 (Aug. 2, 2018) (En Banc), Matthew J. Mckissick

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court held that intent is automatically at issue for specific-intent crimes. Therefore, criminal defendants need not place intent or absence of mistake at issue before the State seeks to admit prior act evidence if the evidence is relevant to prove an essential element of the offense (i.e., intent for the crime of burglary). However, prior act evidence may still be inadmissible where its minimal probative value is substantially outweighed by the risk of unfair prejudice.

Cooper V. State, 134 Nev. 52 (July 26, 2018) (En Banc), Xheni Ristani

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court invoked its supervisory powers and adopted a rule of admissibility to limit the use of a probationer’s testimony in a subsequent criminal proceeding.

State Of Nevada V. Second Judicial District Court., 134 Nev. Adv. Op. 51 (Jul. 19, 2018), Ronald Evans

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court determined that when the State allows a defendant to plead guilty to a first offense domestic battery for a second offense of domestic battery, the State must treat the second conviction as a first conviction for enhancement purposes unless the defendant receives appropriate clarification and warning of the State’s intention to use the second conviction as a second conviction for future enhancement purposes.

Guerrina V. State, 134 Nev. Adv. Op. 45 (June 7, 2018), Xheni Ristani

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court affirmed Lyons v. State, which gives the courts discretion to reject a defendant’s request for self-representation if the request is untimely. Further, the Court affirmed the Mendoza v. State test, which allows a single incident to sustain convictions for both robbery and kidnapping if any movement or restraint creates a risk to the victim substantially exceeding what is necessarily present in the crime of robbery. Finally, the Court held that the State must satisfy NRS § 193.165 to sustain deadly weapon charges.

Coleman V. State, 134 Nev. Adv. Op. 28 (May. 3, 2018), Maliq Kendricks

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Nevada Supreme Court determined that a judgment of conviction pursuant to NRS 200.604(1) is only valid when a person captures or disseminates an image of another's private parts, taken without their consent, under circumstances in which that person has a reasonable expectation of privacy.

Police, Heroes, And Child Trafficking: Who Cries When Her Attacker Wears Blue?, Samuel Vincent Jones

Nevada Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Beyond Bad Apples: Adopting Sentinel Event Reviews In Nevada's Criminal Justice System, Beatriz Aguirre

Nevada Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Jeremias V. State, 134 Nev. Adv. Op. 8 (Mar. 01, 2018), Maliq Kendricks

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Nevada Supreme Court determined that a judgment of conviction, pursuant to a jury verdict, of one count each of conspiracy to commit robbery and burglary while in possession of a deadly weapon and two counts each of robbery with the use of a deadly weapon and murder with the use of a deadly weapon, commands a death sentence.

Andrews V. State, 134 Nev. Adv. Op. 12 (Mar. 01, 2018), Samantha Scofield

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

Under NRS 453.3385, simultaneous possession of different schedule I controlled substances creates separate offenses and the weights of the controlled substances shall not be aggregated together.

Petition For Writ Of Certiorari, Montana V. Tipton, Leslie C. Griffin, Marci A. Hamilton, Paul G. Cassell

Supreme Court Briefs

No abstract provided.

Game Of Drones: Rolling The Dice With Unmanned Aerial Vehicles And Privacy, Rebecca L. Scharf

Scholarly Works

This Article offers a practical three-part test for courts and law enforcement to utilize when faced with drone and privacy issues. Specifically addressing the question: how should courts analyze the Fourth Amendment’s protection against ‘unreasonable searches’ in the context of drones?

The Supreme Court’s Fourth Amendment jurisprudence produced an intricate framework to address issues arising out of the intersection of technology and privacy interests. In prominent decisions, including United States v. Katz, California v. Ciraolo, Kyllo v. United States, and most notably, United States v. Jones, the Court focused on whether the use of a single …

Criminalizing Battered Mothers, Courtney Cross

Scholarly Works

How a domestic violence survivor responds to the abuse she is experiencing depends on many factors. Some critical considerations include her access to resources, desire to stay in her relationship, and assessment of her own safety. Criminal and civil court systems place enormous pressure on survivors to separate from their abusive partners. Not only are survivors with children pressured to leave, they are punished when they stay. That punishment can come in any combination of diminished custody rights, limited parental rights, and incarceration. Yet a survivor who flees with her children is not immune to these same consequences: if she …

Rodriguez V. State, 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 110 (Dec. 28, 2017), Natice Locke, Natice Locke

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court determined that both the inherently dangerous and the functional definitions apply to “deadly weapon,” and that the use of the functional definition does not go against the legislature’s intent in NRS 200.481.

Brown V. Eighth Judicial Dist. Ct, 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 113 (December 28, 2017, Ebeth Rocio Palafox

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court clarified the definition of an indigent person and the demonstration of need sufficient required for an indigent person’s request for defense services. The Court additionally held that Widdis v. Second Judicial Dist. Court does not require an indigent defendant to request a sum certain before the consideration or granting of a motion for defense services at public expense.

Shue V. State Of Nevada, 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 99 (Dec. 14, 2017), Margaret Higgins

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Nevada Supreme Court held that (1) under NRS 200.710(2), knowingly using a minor as the subject of a sexual portrayal in a performance, the proper unit of prosecution is one conviction per each distinct minor appearing as the subject of a sexual portrayal in a performance; (2) under NRS 200.730, the “simultaneous possession at one time and place of [multiple] images depicting child pornography constituted a single violation of NRS 200.730”; (3) the statute barring the “sexual portrayals” of minors are not overbroad and do not violate the First Amendment or the Due Process Clause of the United States …

Doe V. State Ex Rel. Legislature Of The 77th Session, 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 93 (Dec. 7, 2017), Shady Sirsy

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Nevada Supreme Court held that (1) a medical marijuana registry in Nevada does not encroach upon a medical marijuana user’s fundamental right; (2) the registry is rationally related to legitimate state interests beneficial to the public; and (3) the registry does not implicate a registrant’s right against self-incrimination.

Mullner V. State, 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 98 (Dec. 7, 2017), Joseph K. Fabbi

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

A court can use offenses committed as a juvenile, but charged and convicted as an adult, when it considers habitual criminal sentencing, especially if the offender’s past convictions are similar to the crime currently being considered for sentencing.

Bradley V. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 92 (Nov. 22, 2017), Brianna Stutz

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court held that the district court erred when it ordered J.A.’s juvenile and delinquency records be turned over to the defense in Hudson’s criminal case. The Court held that Dr. Bradley’s confidential records pertaining to J.A. are privileged, and no exception or waiver applies.

Alotaibi V. State, 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 81 (Nov. 9, 2017) (En Banc), Brendan Mcleod

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court clarified that when an element goes only to punishment and is not essential to a finding of guilt, it is not an element of the offense for purposes of determining whether a lesser-included-offense instruction is warranted pursuant to NRS 175.501. Further, the Court determined that where a statute provides alternative ways of committing an uncharged offense, the elements of only one of those alternatives needs to be included in the charged offense for the uncharged offense to be a lesser-included offense.

Williams V. State Dep’T Of Corr., 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 75 (Oct. 5, 2017), Xheni Ristani

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Nevada Supreme Court considered whether an offender must serve the minimum term of his or her sentence before any credits earned pursuant to the Credits statute apply to eligibility for parole. The Court disagreed with this argument and held that credits earned can factor-in for parole eligibility if the offender was sentenced under a state that requires a minimum term but does not explicitly mention parole eligibility.

Johnson V. State, 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 73 (Oct. 5, 2017) (En Banc), Ebeth Rocio Palafox

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

When the Court reverses a death sentence on direct appeal and remands for a new penalty hearing, there is no longer a final judgment that triggers the one-year period set forth in NRS 34.726(1) for filing a post-conviction petition for a writ of habeas corpus.

Not From A Wicked Heart: Testing The Assumptions Of The Provocation Doctrine, Carlton J. Patrick, Debra Lieberman

Nevada Law Journal

The normative logic of the provocation doctrine rests on the long-held, yet untested, assumption that anger can motivate people to act in ways which they believe are morally wrong. Here we provide a frontline inquiry into this premise in the context of the quintessential provocation scenario: a man witnessing or learning of his partner’s infidelity. Among men who had discovered a partner’s affair, anger was more strongly correlated with motivation to retaliate than with judgments as to whether such retaliation was morally acceptable. Moreover, anger explained increases in motivation beyond what could be accounted for by increases in moral judgments. …

Unshackling The Sixth Amendment: How Federalism Frees Our Constitutional Hostages Of The War On Drugs, Christopher Giddens

Nevada Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Desai V. State, 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 48 (July 27, 2017), Christopher Giddens

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court determined that a defendant can be convicted of aiding and abetting negligent or reckless crimes upon sufficient proof that the defendant was aware of, and had the intent to promote or further, the negligent or reckless conduct that caused harm. Additionally, the Court (1) confirmed appellant’s convictions for aiding and abetting negligent and reckless “endangerment crimes”; and (2) reversed appellant’s second-degree murder conviction due to intervening causes between his actions and the victim’s death.

Jeffries V. State, 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 47 (July 6, 2017), Hayley Cummings

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

In denying appellant’s motion for a mistrial, the Court held that (1) to prove prosecutorial misconduct, an appellant must show that a prosecutor’s statements resulted in a denial of due process; and (2) to prove juror misconduct, an appellant must show that misconduct occurred and that the misconduct was prejudicial. The Court also clarified Bowman v. State’s applicability by stating that when juror misconduct occurs before the verdict, and defense counsel is aware of the misconduct, it is defense counsel’s responsibility to request an investigation regarding prejudice. Finally, the Court defined the scope of Gonzalez v. State by stating …

Anselmo V. Bisbee, 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 45 (Jun. 29, 2017), Marco Luna

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Nevada Parole Board can deny parole for any reason authorized by regulation or statute. However, inmates do have a statutory right to have a parole hearing under NRS 213.140(1). Therefore, in limited cases where the Nevada Parole Board clearly misapplied its own internal guidelines in assessing whether to grant parole to an inmate, a new parole hearing is warranted.