Justia Nevada Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the district court finding that Assembly Bill (A.B.) 458, which did not met the supermajority voting requirement but was nevertheless passed during the eightieth session of the Nevada Legislature in 2019, was constitution, holding that the bill was not subject to the supermajority requirement.A.B. 458 eliminated future increases in the amount of tax credits available to businesses that donated to certain scholarship organizations. Appellants - parents of scholarship recipients, a scholarship organization, and businesses who benefitted from the tax credit - brought this action challenging the legislation as unconstitutional. The district court granted the State's motion for summary judgment, concluding that the legislation did not violate the supermajority voting provision set forth in Nev. Const. art. IV, 18(2). The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) A.B. 458 does not increase public revenue but instead redirects funds from a specific appropriation to the State General Fund; and (2) therefore, the bill was constitutionally enacted. View "Morency v. State, Department of Education" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction of first-degree murder and related charges, holding that there was no reversible error in jury selection or closing arguments.During his trial, Defendant stipulated to a sentence of life without the possibility of parole if he was found guilty and to waive his right to appeal issues "stemming from the guilt phase of the trial." The jury found Defendant guilty, and the court sentenced Defendant to life without the possibility of parole. On appeal, Defendant raised errors relating to the denial of his pretrial motion to suppress evidence, jury selection, closing arguments, jury deliberations, and sentencing. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Defendant did not waive any error that occurred during closing arguments, sentencing or jury selection; and (2) Defendant waived his other alleged errors. View "Burns v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court denying Defendant's motion to suppress evidence recovered during a warrantless inventory search of his vehicle, holding that the plain-view exception to the warrant requirement of the United States and Nevada Constitutions applied in this case.Following a lawful stop and arrest of Defendant, a police officer performed a warrantless inventory search of Defendant's vehicle that produced no formal inventory. The officer, however, observed contraband during the search, leading to criminal charged being filed against Defendant. Defendant filed a motion to suppress, alleging that the evidence recovered from the vehicle was the product and fruit of an illegal search. The district court denied the motion, concluding that the evidence was validly discovered under the plain-view exception to the warrant requirement. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the plain-view exception to the warrant requirement applied because the officer was legally present in the vehicle at the time he observed the contraband. View "Jim v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court vacated the judgment of the district court denying Defendant's motion to withdraw his guilty plea, denying Defendant's subsequent motion to dismiss the charges against him, and entering a judgment of conviction based on Defendant's guilty plea, holding that the district court erred in denying Defendant's motion to withdraw his guilty plea.Defendant entered into a guilty plea agreement based on charges of robbery and ownership or possession of a firearm by a prohibited person and then suffered a mental breakdown. Defendant sought to withdraw his guilty plea when he regained competency, alleging a violation of his right to a speedy trial and that his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance. The district court denied Defendant's motions and convicted him. The Supreme Court vacated the judgment below, holding that withdrawal was just and fair, and therefore, the district court erred in denying Defendant's motion to withdraw his guilty plea. View "Sunseri v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed Defendant's conviction of two counts each of sexual assault of a minor under fourteen years of age and lewdness with a child under the age of fourteen, holding that the cumulative effect of serious errors violated Defendant's due process right to a fair trial.During trial, the State presented no physical evidence to prove that Defendant committed the offenses. Still, the jury found Defendant guilty of all counts, and he was sentenced to serve an aggregate prison term totaling thirty-five years to life. The Supreme Court reversed the convictions, holding (1) a comment made by the district court undermining the presumption of innocence constituted judicial misconduct; (2) a juror committed misconduct by goggling the term "common sense," and prejudice resulted; (3) certain statements made by the prosecutor during the State's closing argument constituted misconduct; and (4) cumulative error warranted reversal. View "Gunera-Pastrana v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the juvenile court terminating Mother's parental rights in her child, holding that the juvenile court lacked authority to appoint a master to preside over the trial in the termination of parental rights (TPR) proceeding.At issue whether having a hearing master preside over trial in a TPR proceeding satisfies the due process requirements in the Nevada Constitution. The Supreme Court held (1) due process requires the TPR trial to be heard before a district judge in the first instance; and (2) a hearing master cannot preside over a TPR trial pursuant to Nev. Rev. Stat. 432B without infringing on a parent's constitutional right to procedural due process. The Court remanded the case for a new TPR proceeding. View "In re Parental Rights as to L.L.S." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court concluding that the supermajority provision of Nev. Const. art. IV, 18(2) applies to two bills passed in 2019 during the 80th session of the Nevada Legislature, holding that the district court correctly found that the bills were unconstitutional.Article 4, section 18(2) requires the agreement of at least two-thirds of the members of each house of the Nevada Legislature to pass any bill that "creates, generates, or increases any public revenue in any form." After the Legislature declared the two bills in this case (Senate Bills 542 and 551) passed and the Governor had signed them, the senators who voted against the bills brought this action asking the district court to invalidate the bills because they did not receive a supermajority vote in the Senate. The district court found that both bills generated revenue and were, therefore, subject to the constitutional supermajority provision. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) based on its plain language, the supermajority provision applied to the bills at issue, and therefore, the bills were unconstitutional; and (2) legislate immunity protected the individual defendants. View "Legislature of State of Nevada v. Honorable James A. Settelmeyer" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court vacated Defendant's judgment of conviction and remanded the case, holding that the district court denied Defendant due process by failing to conduct a competency hearing when reasonable doubt arose about Defendant's competency.Pursuant to a jury verdict, Defendant was convicted of murder with the use of a deadly weapon. On appeal, Defendant argued that he was denied due process under the United States and Nevada Constitutions when the district court failed to order a competency hearing. The Supreme Court vacated Defendant's judgment of conviction, holding that a trial court must order a hearing sua sponte to determine whether a defendant is competent when their is a reasonable doubt about his competency, and to fulfill its duty to order a competency hearing a trial court must follow Nevada's statutory competency procedures. View "Goad v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the order of the district court granting summary judgment against Plaintiffs, who argued that they were employees of Defendant within the context of the Minimum Wage Amendment (MWA), Nev. Const. art. XV, section 16, holding that summary judgment was improper.Plaintiff, dancers, demanded minimum wages from Defendant, a men's club. Defendant refused to pay because it considered Plaintiffs independent contractors. Plaintiffs brought this class action seeking a ruling that they were employees rather independent contractors and were therefore entitled to minimum wages. The district court concluded that Nev. Rev. Stat. 608.0155 applied to Plaintiffs, rendering them independent contractors ineligible for minimum wages. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) Plaintiffs were employees within the MWA's meaning; and (2) Nev. Rev. Stat. 608.0155 does not abrogate the constitutional protections to which Plaintiffs were entitled. View "Doe Dancer I v. La Fuente, Inc." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court denying the petition for judicial review filed by Silverwing Development challenging the fine imposed upon it by the Nevada State Contractors Board for improperly entering into contracts with contractors that exceeded the contractors' license limits in conjunction with Silverwing's condominium development projects, holding that the term "subdivision site" in Nev. Rev. Stat. 624.220(2) is not unconstitutionally vague.Section 624.220(2) requires the Board to impose a monetary license limit on the amount a contractor can bid on a project and calculates the limit with respect to "one or more construction contracts on a single construction site or subdivision site for a single client." In fining Silverwing, the hearing officer determined that the term "subdivision site" refers to the general location of a subdivision rather than a particular location within a subdivision. The Supreme Court affirmed the district court's denial of Silverwing's petition for judicial review, holding that "subdivision site" in section 624.220(2) plainly refers to the general physical location of a subdivision and that the statute provides an adequate standard to preclude the Board from enforcing it discriminatorily. View "Silverwing Development v. Nevada State Contractors" on Justia Law