Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Criminal Law Commons™

Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

Articles 31 - 60 of 317

Full-Text Articles in Criminal Law

Castillo V. State, 135 Nev. Adv. Op. 16 (May. 30, 2019), E. Sebastian Cate-Cribari Sep 2019

Castillo V. State, 135 Nev. Adv. Op. 16 (May. 30, 2019), E. Sebastian Cate-Cribari

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court determined that (1) a defendant is death-eligible in Nevada once the State proves beyond a reasonable doubt the elements of first-degree murder and at least one statutory aggravating circumstance; and (2) the beyond-a-reasonable-doubt standard does not apply to the weighing of aggravating and mitigating circumstances.

Go to article

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

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.

Go to article

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

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.

Go to article

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

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.

Go to article

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

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.

Go to article

Franks (Kenneth) V. State, 135 Nev. Adv. Op. 1 (Jan. 3, 2019), Scott Whitworth Jan 2019

Franks (Kenneth) V. State, 135 Nev. Adv. Op. 1 (Jan. 3, 2019), Scott Whitworth

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court reviewed whether a district court’s decision to allow the State to introduce prior incidents of uncharged sexual acts as evidence of the defendant’s propensity for committing sexual offenses violated NRS 48.045(3) and concluded such evidence as long as it is first evaluated for relevance and its heightened risk of unfair prejudice.

Go to article

Harris V. State, 134 Nev. Adv. Op. 107 (Dec. 27, 2018) (En Banc), Yilmaz Turkeri Dec 2018

Harris V. State, 134 Nev. Adv. Op. 107 (Dec. 27, 2018) (En Banc), Yilmaz Turkeri

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court considered whether the admission of gruesome photographs showing the disfigured bodies of the victims following their deaths and the subsequent autopsies amounted to an abuse of the district court’s discretion. The Court concluded that admission of these photographs was an abuse of the district court’s discretion.

Go to article

State V. Brown (Taren), 134 Nev. Adv. Op. 102 (Dec. 20, 2018), Tracie Jefcik Dec 2018

State V. Brown (Taren), 134 Nev. Adv. Op. 102 (Dec. 20, 2018), Tracie Jefcik

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court interpreted the good cause showing requirements in NRS 177.015(2) and defined two of the statute’s key phrases: (1) the phrase “propriety of the appeal” means that an appeal is not taken for the purpose of delay, and (2) the phrase “miscarriage of justice” means that suppression of evidence would significantly impair or terminate the State’s ability to prosecute the case. Finding that the State in this case failed to demonstrate good cause, the Court dismissed the appeal.

Go to article

Rodriguez (Juan) V. State, 134 Nev. Adv. Op. 95 (Dec. 6, 2018) (En Banc), Jessica Story Dec 2018

Rodriguez (Juan) V. State, 134 Nev. Adv. Op. 95 (Dec. 6, 2018) (En Banc), Jessica Story

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court held that NRS 200.481(2)(b) is not an enhancement statute and so a sentence for battery resulting in substantial bodily harm with a consecutive sentence for the older-person enhancement is not double sentencing.

Go to article

State V. Dist. Ct. (Ojeda (Francisco)), 134 Nev. Adv. Op. 94 (Dec. 6, 2018) (En Banc), Myrra Dvorak Dec 2018

State V. Dist. Ct. (Ojeda (Francisco)), 134 Nev. Adv. Op. 94 (Dec. 6, 2018) (En Banc), Myrra Dvorak

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court focused on the issue of whether a district court can grant a motion to compel disclosure of criminal background information of veniremembers gathered by the prosecution. The Court determined that a district court has the authority to order the prosecution to share criminal background information of veniremembers obtained from databases that the defense cannot access.

Go to article

State V. Plunkett, 134 Nev. Adv. Op. 88 (Nov. 15, 2018) (En Banc), Austin Maul Nov 2018

State V. Plunkett, 134 Nev. Adv. Op. 88 (Nov. 15, 2018) (En Banc), Austin Maul

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court held that NRS 212.165(4) imposes criminal liability on nonprisoners who assist prisoners in jail possessing cellphones.

Go to article

Williams V. State, 134 Nev. Adv. Op. 83 (Oct. 25, 2018), Arthur Burn Oct 2018

Williams V. State, 134 Nev. Adv. Op. 83 (Oct. 25, 2018), Arthur Burn

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court determined that (1) a district court must perform a comprehensive three-step analysis when a defendant challenges the use of race in peremptory strikes and that (2) a district court should hold a hearing when a defendant seeks to admit evidence showing that a minor victim could have contrived sexual abuse allegations.

Go to article

Warren, Jr. (Joseph) V. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 134 Nev. Adv. Op. 77 (Sep. 27, 2018) (En Banc), James Puccinelli Sep 2018

Warren, Jr. (Joseph) V. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 134 Nev. Adv. Op. 77 (Sep. 27, 2018) (En Banc), James Puccinelli

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court determined that NRS § 177.015(1)(a) authorizes the State to appeal from a justice court dismissal of a criminal complaint because such a decision is a final judgment, and that NRS § 178.562(2) does not limit the State’s remedies to appeal a justice court’s decision to dismiss a criminal complaint because this provision does not mention final judgment.

Go to article

Ibarra Vs. State, 134 Nev. Adv. Op. 70 (Sept. 13, 2018) (En Banc), Whitney Jones Sep 2018

Ibarra Vs. State, 134 Nev. Adv. Op. 70 (Sept. 13, 2018) (En Banc), Whitney Jones

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court determined a defendant can be convicted of larceny from the person when a defendant fraudulently persuades a person to temporarily hand over their property, when in fact the defendant intends to permanently take the person’s property without the person’s consent for purposes of NRS 205.270(1).

Go to article

Dunham (John) V. State, 134 Nev. Adv. Op. 68 (Sept. 6, 2018), Katrina Brandhagen Sep 2018

Dunham (John) V. State, 134 Nev. Adv. Op. 68 (Sept. 6, 2018), Katrina Brandhagen

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court determined that the word “resides” in NRS 205.067(5)(b) does not require that the owner of a dwelling live permanently or continuously in the dwelling. The Court also held that the sentence of a maximum of 96 months in prison with parole eligibility after 38 months imposed on the appellant when a jury convicted him of home invasion, was not cruel and unusual punishment.

Go to article

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

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.

Go to article

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

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.

Go to article

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

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 …

Go to article

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

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.

Go to article

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

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.

Go to article

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

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.

Go to article

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

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.

Go to article

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

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.

Go to article

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

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.

Go to article

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

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.

Go to article

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

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.

Go to article

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

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.

Go to article

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

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 …

Go to article

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

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.

Go to article

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

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.

Go to article

First Prev Next Last