Criminal Law Commons^™

Schofield V. State, 132 Nev. Adv. Op. 26 (Apr. 21, 2016), Kristian Kaskla

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court determined that (1) Nevada’s first-degree kidnapping statute NRS 200.310(1)'s "intent to keep" language is ambiguous; (2) NRS 200.310(1) requires proof that the accused intended to keep the minor for a protracted period of time or permanently; and (3) reversal is warranted because there is insufficient evidence to support appellant's first-degree kidnapping conviction under the proper legal standard.

Harte V. State, 132 Nev., Adv. Op. 40 (June 2, 2016), Brandonn Grossman

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court reaffirmed Flanagan v State, holding that the district court has discretion to admit evidence of a codefendant’s sentence in penalty hearings and affirming the district court’s sentence in the matter.

Taylor Vs. State, 132 Nev. Adv. Op. 27 (April. 21, 2016), Marta Kurshumova

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court determined that (1) access and usage of historical cell phone connection data without a warrant does not violate the Fourth Amendment if the “specific and articulable facts” standard is met, (2) the out-of-court and in-court identifications did not violate Taylor’s constitutional rights to due process of law, (3) the prosecutorial conduct during closing arguments did not violate Taylor’s Sixth Amendment right to a fair trial or Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination, and (4) there was sufficient evidence at trial to support the jury's finding of guilt.

Justin V. Second Jud. Dist. Ct., 132 Nev. Adv. Op. 47 (June 30, 2016), Paul George

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The plain language of NRS § 178.509 does not provide for automatic exoneration of a surety bond when a defendant is remanded to custody or convicted.

Gonzalez V. State, 131 Nev. Adv. Op. 99 (Dec. 31, 2015), Chelsea Stacey

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court, sitting en banc, determined that by failing to answer questions from the jury that suggested confusion on a significant element of the law, failing to give an accomplice-distrust instruction, and by not bifurcating the guilt phase from the gang enhancement phase the district court violated the defendant’s right to a fair trial.

State V. Boston, 131 Nev. Adv. Op. 98 (Dec. 31, 2015), Nancy Snow

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court considers an appeal from a district court order granting a post-conviction petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Specifically, the Court considered whether the holding in Graham applies when an aggregate sentence imposed against a juvenile defender convicted of more than one nonhomicide offense is the equivalent of a life-without-parole sentence. The Court held that it does.

Barber V. State, 131 Nev. Adv, Op. 103 (December 31, 2015), Ronni N. Boscovich

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court considered an appeal from a district court conviction. The Court reversed the Eighth Judicial District Court’s judgment of conviction, pursuant to a jury verdict of burglary and grand larceny. The juvenile court retains jurisdiction over Barber because the legislation did not include language regarding jurisdiction stripping or dismissal requirements. However, the Court reversed the judgment because the prosecution presented insufficient evidence to support Barber’s conviction.

Moultrie V. State, 131 Nev. Adv. Op. 93 (Dec. 24, 2015), Cassandra Ramey

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court of Appeals determined that the district court did not abuse its discretion by allowing the State to file an information by affidavit more than 15 days after the preliminary examination concluded, when the justice court committed an “egregious error,” and “the defendant was discharged but not prejudiced by the delay.” Further, the Court defines “egregious error” as when “a charge was erroneously dismissed or a defendant was erroneously discharged based on a magistrate’s error.” Due to the justice court’s egregious errors in the preliminary examination that resulted in appellant’s discharge, the Court found that the district court was …

Berry V. State, 131 Nev. Adv. Op. No. 96 (Dec. 24, 2015), Brittany L. Shipp

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The issue before the Court was an appeal from a district court order dismissing a post-conviction petition for writ of habeas corpus. The Court reversed and remanded holding that the district court improperly discounted the declarations in support of the appellant’s petition, which included a confession of another suspect, whom the petitioner implicated as the real perpetrator at trial. The Court held that these declarations were sufficient to merit discovery, and an evidentiary hearing on Petitioner Berry’s gateway actual innocence claim.

Newell V. State Of Nevada, 131 Nev. Adv. Op. 97 (December 24, 2015), Douglas H. Smith

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The holding of State v. Weddell is extended. Responding with deadly force to the commission of a felony per NRS § 200.160 is justified only when the person poses a threat of serious bodily injury. Short of such a threat, the amount of force used must be reasonable and necessary under the circumstances.

State V. Merlino, 131 Nev. Adv. Op. No. 65 (Sept. 10, 2015), Brittany L. Shipp

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The issue before the Court was whether selling stolen property through a retractable sliding tray on a pawn shop’s drive-through window satisfied the element of unlawful entry of a building as defined in the burglary statute. The Court held that when the outer boundary of a building is not self-evident from the shape and contours of the structure itself, courts must apply California’s “reasonable belief” test which legally defines the outer boundary to include, “any element that encloses an area into which a reasonable person would believe that a member of the general public could not pass without authorization.”

State V. Smith, 131 Nev. Adv. Op. 63 (Sept. 3, 2015), Jessie Vargas

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

Defendant Terrance Reed Smith entered a no contest plea to one count of child abuse resulting in substantial bodily harm. The Supreme Court of Nevada held Smith’s plea was involuntary because the plea was made in response to acts of coercion by the Washoe County Department of Social Services (“DDS”).

Cassinelli V. State Of Nevada, 131 Nev. Adv. Op. 62 131(Aug. 27, 2015), Mackenzie Warren

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court of Appeals determined that (1) the district court erred by ruling that Cassinelli was not eligible for alcohol treatment under NRS § 458.300(1)(d); (2) the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Cassinelli’s request for assignment to a program of treatment; (3) the plea agreement was not breached and the prosecutor did not engage in misconduct at sentencing; (4) the district court did not err by refusing Cassinelli an opportunity to cross-examine the victim during her impact statement at sentencing; (5) Cassinelli’s sentence was illegal.

Johnson V. State Of Nevada, 131 Nev. Adv. Op. 58, Joseph Meissner

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court heard an appeal from a sentence and conviction following a jury trial of one count of conspiracy to commit robbery, two counts of robbery, and one count of battery with intent to commit a crime. Affirmed.

Summary Of Barral V. State, 131 Nev. Adv. Op. 52 (July 23, 2015), Aleem Dhalla

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

Defendant Dustin James Barral was convicted of two counts of sexual assault with a minor under 14 years of age by a jury. The Supreme Court of Nevada held that the trial court committed a structural error by failing to administer an oath or affrimation to the jury panel prior to commencing voir dire. This error required reversal and a new trial.

Summary Of Guitron (Miguel) V. State, 131 Nev. Adv. Op. 27 (May 21, 2015), Aleem Dhalla

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court determined that (1) the State presented sufficient evidence for a jury to convict Guitron of incest and sexual assault, (2) the district court did err by not allowing Guitron to introduce evidence of the victims sexual knowledge, but this error was harmless, (3) the district court did err refusing to give the jury Guitron’s requested inverse elements instruction, but this error was also harmless, and (4) Guitron could not show that the district court erred by denying his Batson challenge.

Summary Of In Re: L.A.W, 131 Nev. Adv. Op. 24 (May 7, 2015), Jessica Gandy

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court determined, pursuant to the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, as well as Article 1, § 18 of the Nevada Constitution, a public school cannot condition a student’s access to a free public education upon consent to random searches of his person and property. Evidence gathered from random administrative searches must be suppressed in criminal proceedings.

Summary Of Brant V. State, 130 Nev. Adv. Op. 97, Jaymes Orr

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court upheld that the exclusion of expert testimony is left to the district court’s wide discretion, except in cases of abuse of its discretion. Expert testimony must be relevant and reliable to be of assistance to the trier of fact. Because Brant could not present scientific or other evidence that his interrogation witness would demonstrate that Brant’s brain injury caused him falsely confess, the district court’s discretion would not be disturbed and the judgment was affirmed.

Summary Of Byars V. State, 130 Nev. Adv. Op. 85, Katherine Frank

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court determined that (1) pursuant to Missouri v. McNeely[1], the natural dissipation of marijuana in the blood stream does not constitute a per se exigent circumstance permitting a warrantless blood draw, (2) NRS 484C.160(7)[2], which allows officers to use force to obtain blood samples, violates the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution[3], and (3) when a warrantless blood draw is nonetheless taken in good faith, evidence obtained from the blood draw is admissible at trial.

Summary Of Artiga-Morales V. State, 130 Nev. Adv. Op. 77, Janine Lee

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

In the absence of a rule or statute mandating disclosure of jury background information from the prosecution to the defense, no such obligation exists.[1] If policy considerations dictate that defendants should be allowed to see prosecution-developed jury dossiers, then a court rule should be proposed, considered and adopted as implicitly authorized by NRS 179A.100(7)(j). Such a procedure would allow the court to better assess the “scope of disparity, impact on juror privacy interests, the need to protect work product, practicality, and fundamental fairness

than this case, with its limited record and arguments.”

[1] This is the majority opinion. A …

Summary Of Watson V. State, 130 Nev. Adv. Op. 76, Lindsay Liddell

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court determined that (1) a Batson objection to peremptory strikes should be analyzed with reference to the amount of allegedly targeted-group members within the venire; and (2) that a jury instruction is not issued in error when there was a reasonable likelihood that the jury did not understand the instruction incorrectly, even if the rule does not comprehensively explain the underlying doctrine, so long as it accurately states the law.

Summary Of Brown V. Mcdaniel. 130 Nev. Adv. Op. 60, Allison Vitangeli

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court determined whether the ineffective assistance of post-conviction counsel may constitute good cause under NRS 34.726(1) and NRS 34.810 to allow a noncapital petitioner to file an untimely and successive post-conviction petition for a writ of habeas corpus.

Summary Of State V. White, 130 Nev. Adv. Op. 56, Michael Bowman

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court determined whether a person could burglarize his or her own home.

Summary Of Conner V. State Of Nevada, 130 Nev. Adv. Op. 49, Kelsey Bernstein

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court determined three issues: 1) whether, despite there being sufficient evidence to sustain a conviction, the conviction may stand where the State engages in discriminatory jury selection; 2) how a convicted defendant may sufficiently demonstrate that it is more likely than not that the State engaged in purposeful discrimination; and 3) the responsibilities of the district court when ruling on a Batson objection.

Summary Of Harris V. State, 130 Nev. Adv. Op. 47, Danielle Barraza

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court determined whether a motion to withdraw a guilty plea filed after the judgment of conviction is a remedy that is “incident to the proceedings in the trial court.”

Summary Of All Star Bail Bonds, Inc. V. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 130 Nev. Adv. Op. 45, Sean Daly

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

A defendant who left the country voluntarily, but was denied admission upon returning to the country, is considered “excluded,” not “deported,” for purposes of NRS 178.509(1)(b)(5). Furthermore, a district court may not exonerate a bond without a statutory basis for doing so.

Summary Of Gomez V. State, 130 Nev. Adv. Op. 43, Laura Guidry

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court determined two issues: 1) whether the district court properly relied on the incident reports when determining whether to amend the PSI 2) whether a defendant is entitled to due process protections when erroneous statements in his or her PSI will potentially affect his or her prison classification and compromise whether he or she will be released on parole.

Summary Of Sasser V. State, 130 Nev. Adv. Op. 41, Jeffrey Pike

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court determined three issues: 1) whether a district court can amend a presentence investigation report (PSI) in the judgment of conviction rather than amending the PSI itself; 2) whether the district court properly declined to strike information from the PSI; and 3) whether the district court relied on impalpable or highly suspect evidence when sentencing the defendant.

Summary Of Afzali V. State, 130 Nev. Adv. Op. 34, Sean Daly

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court determined whether a defendant has a constitutional right to know the racial composition of a grand jury that indicted him.

Summary Of Lachance V. State, 130 Nev. Adv. Op. 29, Brian Vasek

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court determined whether (1) the sufficiency of the evidence supported the defendant’s domestic battery by strangulation and domestic battery causing substantial bodily harm convictions; (2) the convictions and sentences for possession with intent to sell and simple possession based on possession of the same controlled substance violates the Double Jeopardy Clause; (3) the defendant received adequate notice of the State’s intent to seek habitual criminal status; and (4) the district court properly adjudicated the defendant as a habitual criminal.