Justia Nevada Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The appellant was previously convicted of multiple serious offenses, including attempted murder, grand larceny of a vehicle, and three counts of first-degree murder, for which he received a death sentence and additional prison terms. Decades later, federal habeas relief was granted on the basis of ineffective assistance of counsel regarding his insanity defense, resulting in the vacatur of his conviction and sentence. Upon the State’s attempt to retry him, a competency evaluation found him incompetent to stand trial. The criminal complaint was dismissed without prejudice, and the State sought his civil commitment based on evidence that he has a mental disorder and poses a danger to himself and others.Following a hearing, the Eleventh Judicial District Court of Pershing County found clear and convincing evidence supporting civil commitment and ordered the appellant to a forensic mental health facility, to remain until he either qualifies for conditional release or reaches the statutory maximum duration for such commitment. The appellant argued that he should be credited for the time he spent in prison under the vacated conviction, citing NRS 176.055, and also contended that the civil commitment should not exceed ten years. The district court rejected these arguments, determining that credit for time served under NRS 176.055 does not apply to civil commitments, as such credit is limited to sentences imposed for criminal convictions.The Supreme Court of Nevada affirmed the district court’s order. The court held that Nevada’s statutory scheme does not allow credit for time served in prison under a vacated criminal judgment to be applied against the duration of civil commitment, as civil commitment is a preventive and treatment-oriented measure rather than punitive. The court further held that NRS 178.463 does not provide credit in this context, as it applies only to time spent on conditional release, which the appellant has not received. View "Rogers v. State of Nevada" on Justia Law

Ajay, a recent immigrant from India with limited English proficiency, was investigated for alleged sexual assault and attempted sexual assault against a child under 14 in Reno, Nevada. The accusations stemmed from an incident involving a 13-year-old boy, A.P., whom Ajay met at his workplace and with whom he allegedly engaged in sexual acts. During a custodial police interrogation, Detective DeSantis read Ajay his Miranda rights in English. Ajay repeatedly expressed confusion, stated he was not good in English, and requested to speak in Hindi or have an interpreter. Despite this, DeSantis continued explaining the rights in English, using props and hypotheticals, until Ajay acquiesced and the interrogation proceeded, resulting in a confession.Ajay moved to suppress his statements before the Second Judicial District Court, Washoe County, arguing he had not knowingly and intelligently waived his Miranda rights due to his limited English proficiency. At a pretrial hearing, Ajay testified through an interpreter, detailing his lack of formal English education and unfamiliarity with the American legal system. The district court denied his motion, finding the waiver valid and voluntary, citing DeSantis’s efforts to clarify the warnings and Ajay’s apparent understanding.On appeal, the Supreme Court of Nevada reviewed whether Ajay’s Miranda waiver was knowing and intelligent. The court found that Ajay's limited English skills and explicit requests for an interpreter demonstrated he did not understand his rights. The court held that law enforcement must recognize when a language barrier prevents meaningful waiver and provide an interpreter as necessary. The district court’s admission of Ajay’s confession was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt given its significance at trial. Therefore, the Supreme Court of Nevada reversed the conviction and remanded for further proceedings. View "Ajay v. State" on Justia Law

Three individuals visiting Las Vegas became involved in a confrontation in a casino parking garage, leading to a physical altercation. The appellant joined the fight, and after security intervened, the victims attempted to leave in their car. The appellant pursued them in a rented vehicle, exited to brandish a gun, and later chased them onto a nearby street. Shots were fired into the victims’ vehicle during the pursuit, resulting in the deaths of two individuals and wounding a third. Evidence, including surveillance footage, ballistics, and phone records, implicated the appellant. He admitted to being present and pointing a BB gun but denied participating in the shooting.The Eighth Judicial District Court of Clark County conducted a jury trial, which found the appellant guilty on two counts of murder with the use of a deadly weapon and one count of attempted murder with the use of a deadly weapon. The parties waived the penalty phase, and the court imposed a sentence of life without parole.The Supreme Court of Nevada reviewed several arguments on appeal, including sufficiency of the evidence, prosecutorial misconduct, improper admission of text messages, autopsy photographs, sentencing errors, jury instructions, and cumulative error. The court determined that the evidence supported the jury’s verdict and found no prosecutorial misconduct. It held that the district court erred by admitting unauthenticated text messages, as the State failed to establish their authorship. However, the court concluded this error was harmless given the overwhelming evidence of guilt. The Supreme Court of Nevada found no abuse of discretion in admitting autopsy photographs, sentencing, or jury instructions, and it rejected the claim of cumulative error. The court affirmed the judgment of conviction. View "Talley v. State" on Justia Law

The case concerns an individual who, after viewing pornographic videos online, believed that two people had violated federal obscenity laws. Despite reporting these suspicions to law enforcement without result, he decided to attempt a citizen’s arrest himself. He visited the couple’s home multiple times: the first time, disguised as a pizza delivery worker and equipped with restraints and weapons, he tried to detain one of them but was stopped and warned by police. On a later visit, he left documents at the door. On his final visit, after the couple had separated, he forcibly entered the home, leading to a physical altercation with one resident involving a firearm. Ultimately, he was arrested by police.In the Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County, the defendant was charged with multiple offenses, including attempted second-degree kidnapping, second-degree kidnapping with the use of a deadly weapon, residential burglary while in the possession of a firearm, assault with a deadly weapon, battery with substantial bodily harm, and stalking. At trial, the district court excluded most evidence related to the alleged federal crimes of the victims, ruling that a citizen’s arrest defense was not available for federal felonies and that the evidence did not support such a defense. The court also declined to give a jury instruction on citizen’s arrest and did not sua sponte instruct the jury on lesser-included offenses.The Supreme Court of Nevada reviewed the appeal. It held that Nevada’s citizen’s arrest statute does not authorize private persons to arrest for federal felonies committed outside their presence; thus, the district court correctly excluded the evidence and denied the defense. The court also held that district courts are not required to give lesser-included-offense instructions sua sponte and overruled prior precedent requiring such instructions without a request. The remaining arguments were found meritless, and the convictions were affirmed. View "Ser v. State" on Justia Law

Several individuals were nominated by the Nevada Republican Party to serve as potential electors for the 2020 presidential election. After the Democratic candidates won the Nevada popular vote, these individuals challenged the results in state court, seeking to be declared the legitimate electors. Their challenge was denied by the district court, and the Nevada Supreme Court affirmed that decision. Despite this, the individuals held a ceremony in Carson City, signed documents purporting to cast Nevada’s electoral votes for the Republican candidates, and mailed these documents to various officials, including the Chief Judge of the United States District Court in Las Vegas, Nevada.Based on these actions, the State charged the individuals with crimes under NRS 205.110 (uttering or offering forged instruments) and NRS 239.330 (offering a false or forged instrument to be filed in a public office). The indictment was filed in Clark County, where the federal courthouse is located. The defendants moved to dismiss the indictment, arguing that the alleged offenses were complete upon mailing the documents from Douglas County, and thus venue was improper in Clark County. The Eighth Judicial District Court agreed, finding that the crimes were completed upon mailing and dismissed the indictment for improper venue.The Supreme Court of the State of Nevada reviewed the case and reversed the district court’s dismissal. The court held that the offenses charged were not complete upon mailing, but rather required the delivery and receipt of the documents at the intended location in Clark County. The court concluded that venue was proper in Clark County because the alleged crimes involved the delivery of false documents to a recipient in that county. The case was remanded for further proceedings. View "State v. DeGraffenreid" on Justia Law

A violent incident stemming from a planned drug transaction led to the deaths of two individuals in Las Vegas. The victims, along with a third person, met with two men, including the appellant, at a gas station under the pretense of a drug deal, but intended to steal the drugs. After a confrontation, the victims attempted to flee in their vehicle, pursued by the appellant and his codefendant, who fired shots during the chase. Two of the victims died from their injuries. The surviving victim provided a detailed description of the assailants and later identified the appellant in a photo array after initially withholding the identification.The Eighth Judicial District Court in Clark County presided over the trial. The appellant filed several pretrial motions, including to suppress the identification evidence, his statements to police, and certain text messages, and to sever his trial from his codefendant’s. These motions were denied after hearings, some of which were delayed due to the COVID-19 pandemic. At trial, the jury convicted the appellant on all counts, including two counts of first-degree murder with a deadly weapon, conspiracy to commit murder, attempted murder, and related firearm offenses. The appellant was sentenced to an aggregate term of 36 years to life.The Supreme Court of the State of Nevada reviewed the case. It held that a mixed standard of review applies to the suppression of pretrial identification evidence, reviewing factual findings for clear error and legal conclusions de novo. The court found the photo array was not unnecessarily suggestive and the identification reliable. The court also upheld the denial of the motion to suppress the appellant’s statements, finding no coercion or Miranda violation. Other claims, including delayed rulings, authentication of text messages, denial of severance, and the giving of a flight instruction, were rejected or found to be harmless error. The judgment of conviction was affirmed. View "Camacho v. State" on Justia Law

The appellant was indicted on 22 counts of theft after embezzling nearly $600,000 from his employer over several years. He sought treatment at an addiction center, where he was diagnosed as a pathological gambler and was provisionally approved as a candidate for gambler’s diversion court, a specialty court for defendants whose crimes are related to gambling addiction. He pleaded guilty to all counts and moved for admission into the diversion program, arguing that his crimes were committed to fund his gambling addiction. At an evidentiary hearing, he testified to this effect, but the State presented financial records showing that only a small fraction of the stolen funds was actually used for gambling.The Eighth Judicial District Court of Clark County held an evidentiary hearing and ultimately denied the motion for admission into gambler’s diversion court. The court found that the majority of the embezzled money was used to support a lavish lifestyle rather than to further a gambling addiction. The court determined that the State had met its burden of proof under a preponderance-of-the-evidence standard, showing that the crimes were not committed in furtherance of or as a result of problem gambling. The appellant was sentenced to concurrent prison terms and appealed the denial of admission to the specialty court.The Supreme Court of Nevada reviewed the case and clarified the standard for admission into gambler’s diversion court under NRS 458A.220. The court held that district courts have wide discretion in deciding whether to admit a defendant, and the defendant bears the burden of proving eligibility by showing a rational nexus between the crime and problem gambling. The court found that, although the district court had incorrectly assigned the burden of proof to the State, this error did not prejudice the appellant. The Supreme Court of Nevada affirmed the district court’s denial of admission to gambler’s diversion court. View "PIZARRO VS STATE" on Justia Law

The case concerns a criminal prosecution in which the defendant was charged with assault with a deadly weapon after allegedly pointing a firearm at another person and making threatening statements. The prosecution charged that the defendant intentionally placed the victim in reasonable apprehension of immediate bodily harm by brandishing the firearm. During trial preparation, the defense requested, and the district court approved, a jury instruction requiring the State to prove that the defendant had the present ability to use the weapon, specifically that the firearm was both loaded and operable.The Eighth Judicial District Court of Nevada granted the defense’s request for this instruction over the State’s objection. The State then filed an emergency petition for a writ of mandamus or prohibition with the Supreme Court of Nevada, arguing that the instruction misstated the law because the current statutory definition of assault with a deadly weapon does not require proof that the firearm was loaded and operable or that the defendant had a present ability to injure.The Supreme Court of Nevada reviewed the petition and determined that the relevant statute, NRS 200.471, had been amended since earlier case law to remove the requirement of a present ability to injure. The statute now defines assault as either an unlawful attempt to use physical force or intentionally placing another in reasonable apprehension of immediate bodily harm. The court held that the jury instruction was legally inaccurate and misleading because it imposed requirements not found in the current statute. The court granted the State’s petition for a writ of mandamus and directed the district court to vacate its order approving the challenged jury instruction. View "State v. District Court" on Justia Law

The case concerns the fatal shooting of Angel Rodriguez outside his home. Surveillance footage showed a silver Cadillac SUV near the scene, and eyewitnesses described the shooter as matching the build of Xavier Acosta. Acosta was identified as a suspect after a domestic violence incident involving his spouse, Rebecca. During the investigation, Acosta’s mother-in-law reported that Acosta confessed to killing Rodriguez out of love for Rebecca, who was Rodriguez’s ex-boyfriend. Police seized two cell phones belonging to Acosta and, after obtaining a search warrant, extracted their contents, which included a photograph of Rodriguez’s house taken minutes before the shooting. DNA evidence also linked Acosta to a Cadillac similar to the one seen in the surveillance footage.The Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County, presided over Acosta’s trial. Acosta moved to suppress evidence obtained from his cell phones, arguing the warrant was overbroad and unsupported by probable cause, but the court denied the motion. The court also admitted certain letters between Acosta and his wife and evidence of a prior domestic violence incident. The jury found Acosta guilty of first-degree murder with the use of a deadly weapon, and he was sentenced accordingly.The Supreme Court of Nevada reviewed the case. It held that the warrant authorizing the search of Acosta’s cell phones was constitutionally deficient because it lacked specific facts establishing probable cause that evidence of the murder would be found on the phones. The court found that the district court erred in denying the motion to suppress this evidence and that the good-faith exception did not apply. However, the court concluded that the error was harmless due to overwhelming other evidence of guilt. The Supreme Court of Nevada affirmed the judgment of conviction. View "Acosta v. State" on Justia Law

Raymond Brown pleaded guilty to residential burglary and was sentenced to probation. The State of Nevada filed a motion to correct the sentence, arguing that Brown's prior burglary convictions made him ineligible for probation under NRS 205.060(3). The district court denied the motion after a hearing. The State then petitioned for a writ of mandamus or prohibition, challenging the district court's order.The Eighth Judicial District Court of Nevada reviewed the case and denied the State's motion to correct Brown's sentence. The State argued that the district court abused its discretion and acted beyond its jurisdiction by placing Brown on probation. The State also contended that it could not appeal the order denying its motion, thus justifying the need for writ relief.The Supreme Court of Nevada reviewed the case and determined that the State had an adequate legal remedy in the form of an appeal from the order denying the motion to correct an illegal sentence. The court concluded that the State had the right to appeal the district court's order, as motions to correct an illegal sentence are considered postconviction challenges to a judgment of conviction. The court analogized such motions to motions for a new trial, which are appealable by either party under NRS 177.015(1)(b). Consequently, the Supreme Court of Nevada denied the State's petition for writ relief, as the State had a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the form of an appeal. View "State v. District Court (Brown)" on Justia Law