Criminal Law Commons^™

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.

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.

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 …

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

State V. Carroll, 132 Nev. Adv. Op. 23 (Apr. 7, 2016), Jessie Folkestad

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

Defendant Deangelo Carroll appealed from a conviction for conspiracy to commit murder and first-degree murder with use of a deadly weapon. The Supreme Court of Nevada found the district court erred in denying Carroll’s motion to suppress his statements to police because the police subjected Carroll to a custodial interrogation, without advising him of his Miranda rights. The Court affirmed however, finding the error harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.

State V. Boston, 132 Nev. Adv. Op. 20 (March. 31, 2016), Nancy Snow

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of two counts of first-degree murder with the use of a deadly weapon, one count of conspiracy to commit murder, and related crimes. Defendant was sentenced to death of each murder. The district court denied Defendant’s motion to suppress statements he made in two interviews with police after his initial appearance before a magistrate. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the district court did not err in denying Defendant’s motion to suppress, as his Sixth Amendment right to counsel attached at his initial appearance before the magistrate, but Defendant waived his right to …

Phong T. Vu V. Second Jud. Dist. Ct. Of Nev., 123 Nev. Adv. Op. 21 (Mar. 31, 2016), Chelsea Finnegan

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

Under NRS 433A.310(1)(b), a district court may issue an order of involuntary admittance to a mental health facility if there is clear and convincing evidence that the person is likely to harm himself or others. Here, the Court held that (1) a district court is not required to wait 30 days for a final order under NRS 433A.310(1)(b) before transmitting an involuntary admission to the proper agency, and (2) based on sufficient evidence, the district court properly concluded the petitioner should be admitted to a mental health facility.

Rippo V. State, 132 Nev. Adv. Op. 11 (Feb. 25, 2016), Kristian Kaskla

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

Rippo’s claim, that the ineffective assistance of the counsel who represented him in the first post conviction hearing excused the procedural bars to claims raised in the second petition, was rejected. The Court provided guidance on two issues related to whether an ineffective-assistance-of-postconviction-counsel claim has been raised in a timely fashion: (1) when does a postconviction-counsel claim reasonably become available, and (2) what is a reasonable time thereafter in which the claim must be asserted. They held on (1) that the factual basis for such a claim is not reasonably available until the conclusion of postconviction proceedings in which the …

Quisano V. State, 132 Nev. Adv. Op. 9 (February 18, 2016), Michael Hua

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

This court affirmed an appeal from a judgment of conviction, pursuant to an Alford plea, of voluntary manslaughter and child abuse, neglect, or endangerment with substantial bodily harm holding:

(1) Brady violations do not occur when the evidence in question is not favorable to the defendant;

(2) Prosecutors have a strict duty to disclose under their own open-file policy until sentencing proceedings; and,

(3) Media outlets require a written by the district court to electronically cover proceedings unless nonconstitutional or harmless error results in such coverage.

Kelley V. State, 132 Nev. Adv. Op. 32 (Apr. 28, 2016), Mackenzie Warren

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court determined (1) the charge of misdemeanor reckless driving, NRS § 484B.653(1)(a) is a lesser included offense of felony eluding a police officer, NRS 484B.550(3)(b) and thus, (2) the appellant may not be punished for both crimes because the Double Jeopardy Clause prohibits such conviction.