Criminal Procedure Commons^™

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.

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).

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 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.

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 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.

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.

Summary Of Clay V. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 129 Nev. Adv. Op. 91, Joseph Peacock

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court determined one issue: whether NRS 62H.170(2)(c) or NRS 62H.170(3) permits the State to inspect a defendant’s sealed juvenile record to obtain information for use against that defendant in a subsequent criminal prosecution.

Summary Of Clancy V. State, 129 Nev. Adv. Op. 89, Jim Hoffman

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

A three-judge panel of the Court considered three questions: (1) whether NRS 484E.010-030 require actual knowledge that an accident has occurred, or whether constructive knowledge is sufficient; (2) whether the definition of “involved in an accident” in the same statute is unconstitutionally vague or ambiguous; and (3) whether the evidence in this case was sufficient to support the guilty verdict handed down in the lower court.

Summary Of Watters V. State, 129 Nev. Adv. Op. 94, Brian Vasek

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court determined whether the prosecution’s use of a PowerPoint slide during opening statement with the defendant’s booking photo and the word “guilty” superimposed across the photo was improper advocacy and undermined the defendant’s presumption of innocence.

Summary Of State V. Lloyd, 129 Nev. Adv. Op. 79, Jim Hoffman

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court considers an appeal from a district court order granting the defendant’s motion to suppress evidence based on a warrantless automobile search. The Court considers one issue: whether Article I, Section 18 of the Nevada Constitution imposes an exigency requirement on officers conducting warrantless vehicle searches, or whether officers need only have probable cause.

Summary Of In Re Steven Daniel P., 129 Nev. Adv. Op. 73, Geordan G. Logan

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court determined two issues: (1) whether the juvenile court has authority under NRS 62C.230(1)(a) to dismiss a delinquency petition and refer a juvenile for informal supervision pursuant to NRS 62C.200 without the written approval of the district attorney; and (2) whether the juvenile court's discretion in overseeing a juvenile matter is limited by the authority granted under the Nevada Revised Statutes.

Summary Of Paley V. Second Judicial District Court, 129 Nev. Adv. Op. 74, Alexandria K. Mendonca

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court determined whether it should consider petitioner’s writ of mandamus against a direct contempt order under an exception to the mootness doctrine.

Summary Of State V. Greene, 129 Nev. Adv. Op. No. 58, Brittnie Watkins

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court considered an appeal from a district court order granting respondent’s post-conviction petition for a writ of habeas corpus.

Summary Of Armenta-Carpio V. State, 129 Nev. Adv. Op. No. 54, Drew Wheaton

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court considered whether a concession-of-guilt strategy is equivalent to a guilty plea, thus requiring the district court to canvass a defendant to determine whether he knowingly and voluntarily consented to the concession of guilt.

Summary Of Brass V. State, 129 Nev. Adv. Op. 53, Katelyn J. Cantu

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court considered whether an attorney may file a substantive motion on a deceased client's behalf in a criminal case when a personal representative has not been substituted as a party to the appeal.

Summary Of State V. Robles-Nieves, 129 Nev. Adv. Op. No. 55, Sean Africk

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court considered the appropriate factors for evaluating a motion for the stay of a criminal proceeding pending the resolution of an interlocutory appeal from an order granting a motion to suppress evidence.

Summary Of Clay V. Eighth Judicial District Court, 129 Nev. Adv. Op. 48, Katelyn Franklin

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court considered a petition for a writ of mandamus challenging an order from the district court denying a pretrial petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The question before the Court was whether a district attorney violates NRS 172.095(2) when he or she seeks an indictment for child abuse or neglect under NRS 200.508(1),2 based on nonaccidental physical injury, but fails to inform the grand jurors of the definition of “physical injury.”