Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Discipline
-
- Criminal Procedure (258)
- Evidence (15)
- Constitutional Law (13)
- Civil Procedure (3)
- Civil Rights and Discrimination (3)
-
- Juvenile Law (3)
- Courts (2)
- Family Law (2)
- Jurisdiction (2)
- Legislation (2)
- Common Law (1)
- Contracts (1)
- Elder Law (1)
- Fourteenth Amendment (1)
- Fourth Amendment (1)
- Government Contracts (1)
- Indigenous, Indian, and Aboriginal Law (1)
- Other Law (1)
- Privacy Law (1)
- State and Local Government Law (1)
- Torts (1)
- Keyword
-
- Criminal Law (9)
- Criminal law (6)
- CRIMINAL LAW (5)
- Evidence (4)
- Juvenile (4)
-
- Criminal Appeal (3)
- Criminal Procedure (3)
- Criminal procedure (3)
- Habeas corpus (3)
- Jury instructions (3)
- Sentencing (3)
- Batson objection (2)
- Burglary (2)
- CRIMINAL APPEAL (2)
- CRIMINAL LAW: EVIDENCE (2)
- Constitutional law (2)
- Death Penalty (2)
- Elder Exploitation (2)
- Grand Jury (2)
- Jury Instructions (2)
- Kidnapping (2)
- PSI (2)
- Parole (2)
- Right to a fair trial (2)
- Venire (2)
- Voir dire (2)
- ADMISSIBILITY OF PRIOR BAD ACTS (1)
- AND SELF INCRIMINATION IN MEDICAL MARIJUANA REGISTRIES (1)
- APPEAL (1)
- Abetting (1)
Articles 241 - 270 of 317
Full-Text Articles in Criminal Law
Summary Of Estes V. State, 122 Nev. Adv. Op. No. 96, Michael Hammer
Summary Of Estes V. State, 122 Nev. Adv. Op. No. 96, Michael Hammer
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
Appeal from a conviction, by jury, of two counts of preventing or dissuading a person from testifying or producing evidence, one count of first-degree kidnapping, two counts of battery with intent to commit a crime, six counts of sexual assault of a minor under 14, two counts of coercion, and two counts of lewdness with a child under 14. The primary issue on appeal was the admissibility of evidence gathered while the Appellant was committed to a mental institution for the purpose of evaluating competency to stand trial.
Summary Of Stockmeier V. Psychological Review Panel, 122 Nev. Adv. Op. No. 50, Gregory A. Hubbard
Summary Of Stockmeier V. Psychological Review Panel, 122 Nev. Adv. Op. No. 50, Gregory A. Hubbard
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
The Psychological Review Panel (“Psych Panel”) held a hearing to consider whether a prisoner serving consecutive sentences for sex offenses was a threat to society if he were released on parole. The Psych Panel decided not to certify the prisoner for release, partially based on new allegations made by the victim during the hearing. The prisoner filed a district court petition for a writ of mandamus, prohibition, or habeas corpus, challenging the Psych Panel’s actions. The district court denied and dismissed the petition. The Nevada Supreme Court held that the district court abused its discretion in denying and dismissing the …
Summary Of Mejia V. State, 122 Nev. Adv. Op. 43, David T. Gluth
Summary Of Mejia V. State, 122 Nev. Adv. Op. 43, David T. Gluth
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
Defendant Mejia appealed a judgment of the Eighth Judicial District Court after a jury convicted him of one count of sexual assault against a minor under 14 years of age and seven counts of lewdness with a minor under 14 years of age. Mejia was sentenced to two concurrent terms of life imprisonment with the possibility of parole in ten years for each count of lewdness.
Summary Of Ford V. State Of Nevada, 122 Nev. Adv. Op. 36, Denise S. Balboni
Summary Of Ford V. State Of Nevada, 122 Nev. Adv. Op. 36, Denise S. Balboni
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
Appeal from jury verdict in criminal trial on grounds that prosecutors impermissibly excluded jurors based on race in violation of Batson v. Kentucky.
Summary Of Stockmeier V. Nev. Dep’T. Of Corrections Psychological Review Panel, 124 Nev. Adv. Op. No. 30, Holly Ludwig
Summary Of Stockmeier V. Nev. Dep’T. Of Corrections Psychological Review Panel, 124 Nev. Adv. Op. No. 30, Holly Ludwig
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
Appeal from district court’s grant of a 12(b)(5) motion to dismiss in favor of Defendant Psych Panel. District court held: (1) that Stockmeier lacked standing to assert violations of the open meeting law; (2) that prisoners cannot conduct the people’s business and therefore cannot assert open meeting law violations; and (3) that Psych Panel hearings qualify as quasi-judicial proceedings and are therefore exempt from the open meeting law.
Summary Of Barnhart V. State, 122 Nev. Adv. Op. 26, Robert Reid
Summary Of Barnhart V. State, 122 Nev. Adv. Op. 26, Robert Reid
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
No abstract provided.
Summary Of Herman V. State, 122 Nev. Adv. Op. 17, Michael Pandullo
Summary Of Herman V. State, 122 Nev. Adv. Op. 17, Michael Pandullo
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
In this case, the Court considered two issues: (1) whether DNA evidence voluntarily submitted to a public facility to absolve a defendant of a crime may be used in an unrelated criminal prosecution, and (2) whether reading a presentence report to a jury during the sentencing phase is error when the report cannot be made part of the public record.
Summary Of State V. Sargent, 122 Nev. Adv. Op. 18, Michael Pandullo
Summary Of State V. Sargent, 122 Nev. Adv. Op. 18, Michael Pandullo
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
The Court decided whether justice courts have jurisdiction to order a defendant to personally appear at a preliminary hearing when the defendant has filed a waiver of personal appearance and counsel has appeared on his behalf.
Summary Of Redeker V. Dist. Ct., 122 Nev. Adv. Op. 14, Brandon P. Kemble
Summary Of Redeker V. Dist. Ct., 122 Nev. Adv. Op. 14, Brandon P. Kemble
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
Arie R. Redeker, facing a capital murder trial, made a petition for a writ of mandamus or prohibition challenging the alleged aggravating circumstances that he was convicted of a felony involving the use or threat of violence to the person of another.
Summary Of Moore V. State, 122 Nev. Adv. Op. 4, Stephanie Hamrick
Summary Of Moore V. State, 122 Nev. Adv. Op. 4, Stephanie Hamrick
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
Appellant Moore was convicted of fraudulent use of a credit card based on an incident that took place in a Las Vegas Wal-Mart. His suspicious behavior2 while shopping attracted the attention of a loss prevention specialist. The loss prevention specialist suspected Moore might attempt to purchase goods with a credit card, and instructed a cashier to contact management if Moore presented a credit card without proper identification. Moore brought over $300 worth of goods to the cashier’s register and presented a credit card. When Moore could not produce identification, the cashier summoned a manager who took the credit card to …
Summary Of George V. State, 122 Nev. Adv. Op 1, David T. Gluth
Summary Of George V. State, 122 Nev. Adv. Op 1, David T. Gluth
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
In 2002, appellant, George, filed a writ of habeas corpus with the Nevada Supreme Court claiming he was deprived his right to appeal. The Nevada Supreme Court then discovered that defendant's original 1985 notice of appeal was never transmitted. The court directed the district court to transmit defendant's notice of appeal and appoint appellate counsel.
Summary Of Williams V. State, 121 Nev. Adv. Op. 90, Jacqueline A. Gilbert
Summary Of Williams V. State, 121 Nev. Adv. Op. 90, Jacqueline A. Gilbert
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
A jury, selected from the third venire, convicted Gary Jerome Williams of battery with use of a deadly weapon causing substantial bodily harm on Robin Swope. On June 22, 2003, Williams and the victim (Robin Swope) engaged in an altercation after Swope saw Williams speaking to Swope’s thirteen-year-old daughter. At trial, most details of the altercation were highly disputed including, who was the initial aggressor, who produced a knife, and whether Swope used highly inflammatory language. In 1985, when he was seventeen, the State of Arkansas convicted Williams of aggravated battery, sentencing him to fifteen years confinement. The Nevada pre-sentencing …
Summary Of Bolden V. State, 121 Nev. Adv. Op. 86, Kelly Dove
Summary Of Bolden V. State, 121 Nev. Adv. Op. 86, Kelly Dove
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
No abstract provided.
Summary Of Sampson V. State, 121 Nev. Adv. Op. 80, Denise S. Balboni
Summary Of Sampson V. State, 121 Nev. Adv. Op. 80, Denise S. Balboni
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
Admission of expert testimony is within the sole discretion of the trial judge. Abuse of discretion does not exist where defense counsel waited until the eighth day of trial to seek to call a newly-named expert witness without sufficient justification for the delay. The Nevada Supreme Court adopts the rule against admission of witness and prosecution comments regarding a defendant’s invocation of Fourth Amendment rights when such evidence is used to support an inference of guilt. When the district court admits such evidence, this Court will determine the existence of reversible error by application of the same test used for …
Summary Of Blake V. State, 121 Nev. Adv. Op. 77, Anna Arroyo
Summary Of Blake V. State, 121 Nev. Adv. Op. 77, Anna Arroyo
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
No abstract provided.
Summary Of Bennett V. Dist. Ct., 121 Nev. Adv. Op. 78, Collin Webster
Summary Of Bennett V. Dist. Ct., 121 Nev. Adv. Op. 78, Collin Webster
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
No abstract provided.
Summary Of Gaxiola V. State, 121 Nev. Adv. Op. 64, Debra L. Pieruschka
Summary Of Gaxiola V. State, 121 Nev. Adv. Op. 64, Debra L. Pieruschka
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
An appeal from a judgment of conviction, entered after jury verdict, on five counts of sexual assault of a minor under the age of fourteen years and two counts of lewdness with a child under the age of fourteen years.
Summary Of Sandstrom V. Second Judicial District Court Of Nevada, 121 Nev. Adv. Op. 65, Jarrod Rickard
Summary Of Sandstrom V. Second Judicial District Court Of Nevada, 121 Nev. Adv. Op. 65, Jarrod Rickard
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
Original petition for a writ of certiorari or in the alternative a writ of mandamus challenging the district court's order reversing and remanding a justice court order granting petitioner's motion to dismiss a misdemeanor criminal complaint.
Summary Of State V. Weber, 121 Nev. Adv. Op. 57, Danielle Oakley
Summary Of State V. Weber, 121 Nev. Adv. Op. 57, Danielle Oakley
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
An appeal from a judgment of conviction and sentence of death, pursuant to a jury trial.
Summary Of Phillips V. State, 121 Nev. Adv. Op. 58, Patrick Murch
Summary Of Phillips V. State, 121 Nev. Adv. Op. 58, Patrick Murch
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
Defendant/Appellant Donald E. Phillips ("Phillips") appealed from a jury conviction of one count each of aggravated stalking and preventing or dissuading a witness from testifying, and twelve counts of extortion.
Summary Of Anderson V. State, 121 Nev. Adv. Op. 51, Bryce C. Loveland
Summary Of Anderson V. State, 121 Nev. Adv. Op. 51, Bryce C. Loveland
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
No abstract provided.
Summary Of Bellon V. State, 121 Nev. Adv. Op. 45, 117 P.3d 176, Wayne Klomp
Summary Of Bellon V. State, 121 Nev. Adv. Op. 45, 117 P.3d 176, Wayne Klomp
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
No abstract provided.
Summary Of Hosier V. State, 121 Nev. Adv. Op. 41, Robert Henriksen
Summary Of Hosier V. State, 121 Nev. Adv. Op. 41, Robert Henriksen
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
This case is an original proper person petition for extraordinary relief, challenging the validity of Hosier’s 1990 judgment for conviction citing to Article 6, Section 4 of the Nevada Constitution.
Summary Of Gordon V. State, 121 Nev. Adv. Op. 51, Bryce C. Loveland
Summary Of Gordon V. State, 121 Nev. Adv. Op. 51, Bryce C. Loveland
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
In this case, the Court considered two issues related to DUI charges against appellant. First, whether a jury may return a general guilty verdict based upon several legally sufficient theories of driving under the influence if at least one theory had sufficient evidentiary support. Second, whether the appellant was prejudiced by the State’s failure to gather evidence during its investigation. After a review of the evidence presented at trial, the Court concluded that a jury may return a general guilty verdict even when only one of several theories had sufficient support, and that the appellant here was not prejudiced by …
Summary Of Whisler V. State, 121 Nev. Adv. Op. 40, Jared R. Gibb
Summary Of Whisler V. State, 121 Nev. Adv. Op. 40, Jared R. Gibb
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
The defendant, Douglas Whisler, appealed his conviction for driving while under the influence of controlled substances or chemicals.
Summary Of Fiegehen V. State, 121 Nev. Adv. Op. 30, Michael Shalmy
Summary Of Fiegehen V. State, 121 Nev. Adv. Op. 30, Michael Shalmy
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
An intruder entered a residence, killed one person and shot another. The victim placed a 911 call, but within minutes, the 911 connection went dead. Sheriff's deputies arrived at the residence shortly thereafter and found one victim alive, lying on the floor in a pool of blood. The telephone line nearby had been cut. A body was discovered on a deck outside. Evidence implicated Christopher Fiegehen as the primary suspect. However, he abruptly fled Nevada on the day of the crime. Two months later, he was stopped and questioned by police officers in Indiana, where they apprehended him after a …
Summary Of Wilson V. State, 121 Nev. Adv. Op. 34, Kathleen L. Fellows
Summary Of Wilson V. State, 121 Nev. Adv. Op. 34, Kathleen L. Fellows
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
A jury convicted Wiley Gene Wilson of four counts of use of a minor in the production of pornography and four counts of possession of visual presentations depicting sexual conduct of a person under sixteen years of age. Wilson appealed, arguing that his four convictions for using a child in a sexual performance were redundant convictions. In September of 2001, Wilson and the ten-year-old female victim (M.T.) left M.T.'s father's trailer to attend to errands related to installing a satellite television system. Apparently, while running errands and stuck in traffic, M.T. urinated in her clothing. Subsequently, Wilson took M.T. to …
Summary Of State V. Dist. Court (Riker), 121 Nev. Adv. Op. 25, Kimberly Lou
Summary Of State V. Dist. Court (Riker), 121 Nev. Adv. Op. 25, Kimberly Lou
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
The State of Nevada convicted David Robert Riker (“Riker”) for murder. Riker filed two sets of post-conviction petitions for the writ of habeas corpus—one in 1998 and one in 2004. The district court denied the 1998 petition, but granted the 2004 petition and an evidentiary hearing. The State of Nevada petitioned the Nevada Supreme Court for a writ of mandamus or prohibition arguing that Riker’s habeas corpus claims are procedurally barred and that the district court exceeded its jurisdiction in granting a hearing. The Nevada Supreme Court agreed in part with the State and ordered the district court to apply …
Summary Of Rosky V. State, 121 Nev. Adv. Op. No. 22, Jason Peck
Summary Of Rosky V. State, 121 Nev. Adv. Op. No. 22, Jason Peck
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
Police executed a search warrant at John Rosky’s apartment as part of an investigation into the sexual assault of a 13-year-old girl. Two police officers eventually drove Rosky to a police substation for questioning but they did not formally arrest him or administer Miranda warnings. Police informed Rosky that his participation was voluntary and that he was free to leave at any time. At one point during the questioning, Rosky took a ten-minute break and went outside the police station unaccompanied by the detectives. The detectives used mild forms of deception and confronted Rosky with their belief that he was …
Summary Of Viray V. State, 121 Nev. Adv. Op. 19, Chris Orme
Summary Of Viray V. State, 121 Nev. Adv. Op. 19, Chris Orme
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
A jury convicted Benjardi Batucan Viray for lewdness with a minor. He appealed claiming that there was an improper inclusion of new information at a preliminary hearing and that this inclusion was sufficient to declare a mistrial. The Nevada Supreme Court held that a change in the factual situation is not sufficient to declare a mistrial if the inclusion of new information does not affect the defendant’s substantial rights and the charged offense remained the same. The second issue was whether a court should declare a mistrial when a juror disregards the admonishment of the court to not speak about …