Criminal Procedure Commons^™

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.

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.

State V. Harris, 131 Nev. Adv. Op. 56, Ashleigh Wise

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court held that it has the jurisdiction to consider an appeal by the State from an order granting a prejudgment motion for a new trial in a criminal matter because the plain language of NRS 177.015(1)(b) authorizes such an appeal and because unique policy concerns identified in State v. Lewis[1] do not apply.

[1] 124 Nev. 132, 136, 178 P.3d 146, 148 (2008).

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 Lisle V. State, 131 Nev. Adv. Op. 39 (June 25, 2015), Adam Wynott

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court held that the petitions filed by the appellant, Kevin James Lisle (Lisle), were procedurally barred. The Court determined that a petitioner cannot present new evidence of mitigating circumstances in order to prove actual innocence of the death penalty. The Court determined that the claims of Lisle did not warrant relief and upheld the district court ruling.

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.

Oversight Hearing On Juvenile Justice In Indian Country: Challenges And Promising Strategies, Addie C. Rolnick

Congressional Testimony

In her testimony before the United States Senate Committee on Indian Affairs, Prof. Rolnick describes her research and recommendations concerning how to improve juvenile justice for American Indian and Alaska Native youth.

Confrontation After Ohio V. Clark, Anne R. Traum

Scholarly Works

The Supreme Court’s decision in Ohio v. Clark, provides an occasion to take stock of the Sixth Amendment Right to Confrontation since the court’s landmark 2004 decision in Crawford v. Washington. Crawford strengthened a defendant’s right to confront his accusers face-to-face, underscoring that cross-examination is the constitutionally preferred method for testing the reliability of accusatory statements. Clark could eliminate that right in a wide range of cases where, although the reliability of a declarant’s out-of-court statements is critically important, a defendant has no right to confrontation.

Advocacy As An Exercise In Virtue: Lawyering, Bad Facts, And Furman's High-Stakes Dilemma, Linda H. Edwards

Scholarly Works

Two of the conversations benefitting most from Jack Sammons's scholarship are conversations about legal rhetoric and about virtue ethics. Legal rhetoric is the study of the conventions of legal argument, specifically, the art of identifying and evaluating the best available means of persuasion and implementing those means effectively in light of audience, purpose, and occasion. Virtue ethics approaches moral reflection by asking what sort of person a particular moral choice encourages the actor to become. It focuses on consequences to the moral agent herself rather than directly focusing on consequences to others. The goal is to become a virtuous person, …

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.

The Framers' Fourth Amendment Exclusionary Rule: The Mounting Evidence, Roger Roots

Nevada Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Probing Into Salinas's Silence: Back To The "Accused Speaks" Model?, Rinat Kitai-Sangero, Yuval Merin

Nevada Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Summary Of Jones V. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 130 Nev. Adv. Op. 53, Kylee Gloekner

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court determined (1) whether a criminal defendant’s access to the courts can be restricted by the district court when he or she is challenging a judgment of conviction and sentence or the computation of time served under a judgment of conviction; and (2) whether there is an established approach courts should take when restricting the access.

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.

The Expanding Use Of Genetic And Psychological Evidence: Finding Coherence In The Criminal Law? , Michael Vitiello

Nevada Law Journal

No abstract provided.

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 Coleman V. State, 130 Nev. Adv. Op. 22, Kylee Gloeckner

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court determined whether a person who is serving a sentence of lifetime supervision may challenge that sentence by filing a post-conviction petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Summary written by Kylee Gloeckner.

Summary Of Davis V. State, 130 Nev. Adv. Op. 16, Danielle Barraza

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court clarified two issues: [1] whether battery is justifiable in self-defense under the same conditions that would justify homicide, and [2] when proposed jury instructions should be accepted by the trial court regarding justifiable battery.

Summary Of Sanchez-Dominguez V. State, 130 Nev. Adv. Op. 10, Brady Briggs

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court determined two issues: (1) whether the felony murder rule applies to killings which occur only after all of the elements of the underlying felony are complete, and (2) whether the felony murder rule requires that a killing be caused by the commission of the underlying felony.

Summary Of Peciado V. State, 130 Nev. Adv. Op. 6, Geordan G. Logan

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court determined two issues: (1) whether due process requires that all sidebar proceedings be made a part of the record; and (2) whether prospective jurors who are anything less than unequivocal about their impartiality should be excused for cause.