Justia Nevada Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Hugo Sanchez pleaded guilty to multiple felony offenses involving two juvenile victims. Eight years later, he filed a petition to establish factual innocence under Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) 34.900-.990. The district court dismissed the petition without prejudice, stating that Sanchez did not meet the pleading requirements under NRS 34.960.Previously, Sanchez had filed a direct appeal, which was dismissed after he voluntarily withdrew it. He later filed a postconviction petition for a writ of habeas corpus, claiming actual innocence regarding some charges. The State argued that such a claim should be raised in a petition to establish factual innocence. The district court denied the State's motion to dismiss and allowed Sanchez to amend his petition. Sanchez then filed an amended petition to establish factual innocence, supported by a declaration from one of the victims recanting her previous statements. The district court initially set a hearing but later limited it to the pleading requirements under the factual-innocence statutes and subsequently dismissed the petition without prejudice.The Supreme Court of Nevada reviewed the case to determine if an order dismissing a petition to establish factual innocence without prejudice is appealable. The court concluded that such an order is not appealable under NRS 34.970(9) or any other statute or rule cited by Sanchez. The court noted that the factual-innocence statutes do not provide for an appeal from an order dismissing a petition without prejudice and that such an order does not constitute a final judgment. Consequently, the Supreme Court of Nevada dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. View "SANCHEZ VS. STATE" on Justia Law

John Paul Alvarez was initially charged with misdemeanor possession of stolen property in Reno Municipal Court, to which he pleaded guilty and was sentenced to 30 days in county jail. Subsequently, he was charged with residential burglary, conspiracy to commit burglary, and grand larceny in the Second Judicial District Court, Washoe County, based on the same incident. The primary issue on appeal was whether Alvarez's prosecution and conviction for grand larceny violated double jeopardy principles, given his prior guilty plea to possession of stolen property.In the lower court, Alvarez filed a motion to dismiss the grand larceny charge on double jeopardy grounds, arguing that the State was barred from prosecuting him for grand larceny because it involved the same act as the possession-of-stolen-property offense. The district court denied the motion, concluding that under the Blockburger test, each offense required proof of a fact not required by the other. The case proceeded to trial, and the jury found Alvarez guilty of residential burglary, conspiracy to commit burglary, and grand larceny.The Supreme Court of Nevada reviewed the case and held that a defendant cannot be convicted of both a theft crime and possessing or receiving the property stolen in the commission of the same theft crime. The court reaffirmed that theft crimes and possession of stolen property are mutually exclusive, alternative offenses. Consequently, the district court erred in denying Alvarez's motion to dismiss the grand larceny charge, as his prior conviction for possession of stolen property precluded the grand larceny conviction. The Supreme Court of Nevada reversed Alvarez's grand larceny conviction but affirmed the other convictions and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "ALVAREZ VS. STATE" on Justia Law

On January 18, 1997, C.V. was sexually assaulted by a man holding a knife who approached her at a bus stop, walked her to a vacant lot, and assaulted her. The perpetrator then dumped out her purse and left. A sexual assault examination was conducted, but no suspect was identified at the time. Over 20 years later, Clifton Dawson's DNA matched the DNA from the examination kit. Dawson was charged with one count of sexual assault and found guilty in 2022 after a six-day jury trial. At sentencing, the State sought an enhancement based on Dawson's habitual criminal status.The Eighth Judicial District Court in Clark County applied the habitual criminal statute in effect at the time of the offense, which required three prior felony convictions for a large habitual criminal adjudication. The court found three qualifying convictions and sentenced Dawson to life in prison without the possibility of parole.The Supreme Court of Nevada reviewed the case. Dawson argued that the enhancement should be based on the statute in effect at the time of sentencing, not the time of the offense. The court disagreed, holding that the statute in effect at the time of the offense applies unless the legislature clearly states otherwise. The court found that the 1995 version of the habitual criminal statute was correctly applied.However, the court concluded that the district court erred in adjudicating Dawson as a habitual criminal because the State did not prove the requisite number of prior convictions. Only two of the prior convictions predated the charged offense. The court vacated Dawson's sentence and remanded for a new sentencing hearing, emphasizing that the State must prove that prior convictions predate the charged offense for habitual criminal adjudication. View "DAWSON VS. STATE" on Justia Law

In 2020, state and federal law enforcement conducted a reverse sting operation in Reno, targeting individuals seeking commercial sex with minors. Jesus Alberto Martinez, Jr. was arrested after he responded to an online advertisement and engaged in text conversations with an undercover officer posing as a 17-year-old sex worker. Martinez was charged with attempted abuse or neglect of a child involving sexual exploitation and soliciting a child for prostitution. He was convicted on both charges following a jury trial.Martinez appealed, arguing that the government's conduct was outrageous and violated due process, and that the jury instructions on entrapment were improper. He also contended that the evidence was insufficient to support the charges, and that his rights were violated by the district court's denial of his motion to compel the identity of the person depicted in the online advertisement.The Nevada Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the conviction. The court clarified the law on entrapment, emphasizing the importance of predisposition over initial contact. It adopted a six-factor test from United States v. Black to evaluate whether the government's conduct was outrageous. The court concluded that the government's conduct did not violate due process and that the jury instructions on entrapment, while containing an error regarding initial contact, did not warrant reversal. The court also found sufficient evidence to support the charges and determined that the district court did not err in denying Martinez's motion to compel the identity of the person in the advertisement. The judgment of conviction was affirmed. View "MARTINEZ VS. STATE" on Justia Law

The case involves Nathan Chasing Horse, who was indicted on multiple felony charges, including sexual assault, by a grand jury. The charges stem from allegations by two victims, C.C.H. and S.B., who claimed that Chasing Horse used his position within the Lakota Tribe to manipulate them into sexual relationships under the guise of spiritual and healing practices. C.C.H. alleged that Chasing Horse coerced her into sexual acts to heal her mother’s cancer, while S.B. claimed she was similarly manipulated due to her fear of spiritual consequences.The Eighth Judicial District Court of Nevada denied Chasing Horse's pretrial petition for a writ of habeas corpus, which challenged the indictment on the grounds that the State improperly instructed the grand jury on the concept of "grooming" and failed to present exculpatory evidence. The district court dismissed one count but upheld the remaining charges, leading Chasing Horse to seek relief from the Nevada Supreme Court.The Supreme Court of Nevada reviewed the case and found that the State had provided an improper instruction on "grooming" to the grand jury, which was unsupported by evidence and not necessary for the elements of the charged offenses. Additionally, the court determined that the State failed to present exculpatory evidence, specifically statements made by C.C.H. that could indicate consent, which is a critical element in sexual assault charges. The court concluded that these errors prejudiced Chasing Horse and undermined the integrity of the grand jury proceedings.The Nevada Supreme Court granted the writ petition, directing the district court to dismiss the indictment without prejudice. The State may seek a new indictment, but it must correct the errors identified by the court in its presentation to the grand jury. View "CHASING HORSE VS. DIST. CT." on Justia Law

Fahd Dayani was on house arrest pending an unrelated trial when officers conducted a warrantless compliance check and found methamphetamine and heroin in his residence. Dayani was arrested and charged with two counts of trafficking in a controlled substance. On the same day, his cousin, Alina Jagshi, made statements to the police indicating that the drugs belonged to her. Dayani's counsel informed the district attorney's office about Jagshi's confession, which was recorded on an officer's body-worn camera. However, the State did not present this video to the grand jury, which subsequently indicted Dayani.Dayani filed a motion to dismiss the indictment, arguing that the State violated NRS 172.145(2) by not presenting exculpatory evidence, including the video of Jagshi's confession and evidence of a second bathroom in his residence. The Eighth Judicial District Court of Nevada construed the motion as a pretrial petition for a writ of habeas corpus and denied it as untimely under NRS 34.700(1)(a)'s 21-day deadline. Dayani then filed a petition for a writ of mandamus or prohibition with the Supreme Court of Nevada, arguing that his motion was improperly construed and should have been considered on its merits.The Supreme Court of Nevada held that challenges alleging violations of NRS 172.145(2) may be properly brought via a motion to dismiss and are not confined by the 21-day time limit for pretrial habeas petitions. The court concluded that the district court had a duty to consider Dayani's motion on its merits. Consequently, the Supreme Court granted the petition and directed the district court to vacate its order denying the motion to dismiss and to consider the motion on its merits. View "DAYANI v. THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA" on Justia Law

A six-year-old child, Z.K., was removed from the custody of Yumila Cardenas-Garcia due to unlivable conditions in her home. Cardenas-Garcia was charged with felony child abuse, neglect, or endangerment. She pleaded no contest at the custody hearing, and Z.K. remained in protective custody. In a separate criminal case, she pleaded guilty to the felony as part of a plea agreement, which allowed her to withdraw the felony plea after completing probation and instead plead guilty to a misdemeanor.The Eighth Judicial District Court held an evidentiary hearing to determine if Cardenas-Garcia had rebutted the statutory presumption against reunification under NRS 432B.555, which applies to parents convicted of felony child abuse. The court found she had not proven by clear and convincing evidence that Z.K. would not be harmed by reunification. After completing probation and withdrawing her felony plea, Cardenas-Garcia again sought a determination on the presumption's applicability. The district court maintained that the presumption still applied because she had not rebutted it at the prior hearing.The Supreme Court of Nevada reviewed the case and denied the petition for a writ of mandamus. The court held that NRS 432B.555 applies to anyone who has ever been convicted of felony child abuse, regardless of the legal status of that conviction. The court emphasized that the statute's use of the word "ever" means it applies even if the conviction was later voided. The court concluded that the presumption against reunification remains unless the parent can prove by clear and convincing evidence that no harm will come to the child. The petition was denied, affirming the district court's application of the statutory presumption. View "CARDENAS-GARCIA VS. THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA" on Justia Law

Isaac Antonio Rodriguez was convicted of five counts of sexual assault of a child under the age of 14, lewdness with a child under the age of 14, and possession of visual presentation depicting sexual conduct of a person under 16 years of age. The conviction was based on his sexual relationship with a minor, A.F., from 2017 to 2019. Rodriguez appealed the conviction on three grounds: the district court's admission of text messages over his objection, alleged prosecutorial misconduct in the closing argument, and the district court's denial of his request for a jury instruction regarding the edited nature of the admitted text messages.The district court had admitted the text messages as evidence, despite Rodriguez's objections. During the trial, the State argued that gaps in time with no text messages supported the inference that Rodriguez and A.F. had indeed met in person. Rodriguez objected to this argument, but the district court overruled the objection. Rodriguez also sought a jury instruction explaining that the text messages were only a sampling of the full conversations between A.F. and him, but the district court declined to instruct the jury on the matter.The Supreme Court of Nevada affirmed the conviction. The court concluded that the district court properly admitted the text messages and clarified that the rule of completeness is a rule of admission, not of exclusion. The court also found that the prosecution did not commit misconduct in its closing argument. Finally, the court ruled that the district court did not err in failing to instruct the jury regarding the edited nature of the text messages. View "Rodriguez v. State" on Justia Law

The case involves Manuel Mariscal-Ochoa, who was convicted of sexual assault against a child under the age of 14 years and lewdness with a child under the same age. The 9-year-old victim, L.N.C., alleged four instances of abuse, claiming that Mariscal-Ochoa had penetrated her with his fingers or penis on each instance. Mariscal-Ochoa pleaded not guilty, and the case went to trial. During voir dire, a prospective juror stated that she might recognize the defendant because he may have abused her niece or nephew. The defense moved for a mistrial.The district court denied the motion for a mistrial, reasoning that the prospective juror's statements were not so prejudicial as to require disqualification of the venire. The court found that the prospective juror's statement was equivocal and vague, and any prejudice could be neutralized by a curative admonition, which the district court administered. The jury found Mariscal-Ochoa guilty of one count of sexual assault and the single charged count of lewdness. The jury acquitted Mariscal-Ochoa on the three remaining sexual assault counts.On appeal, Mariscal-Ochoa raised several issues, including the district court’s denial of his motion for a mistrial after the prospective juror’s statements, arguing that the statements so prejudiced the venire that he could not have received a fair trial. The Supreme Court of Nevada concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion by issuing a curative admonition rather than dismissing the venire. The court affirmed the judgment of conviction. View "Mariscal-Ochoa v. State" on Justia Law

The appellant, Barry Rashad Harris, was convicted of first-degree kidnapping resulting in substantial bodily harm, battery constituting domestic violence, misdemeanor assault, and battery resulting in substantial bodily harm constituting domestic violence, following a physical altercation with his girlfriend. He was sentenced to an aggregate term of 15 years to life. Harris filed a pro se petition for a postconviction writ of habeas corpus, alleging ineffective assistance of pretrial, trial, and appellate counsel. The district court appointed postconviction counsel, who supplemented the petition with additional claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. The district court set the matter for an evidentiary hearing.Due to a communication error, Harris, who was incarcerated, was not transported to attend the hearing. The district court proceeded with the hearing in Harris's absence, without a waiver from him of his statutory right to be present. The district court concluded that Harris had not shown ineffective assistance of counsel and denied the petition.The Supreme Court of Nevada found that the district court violated Harris's statutory right to be present at the hearing. The court clarified that counsel may not waive a petitioner’s right to be present at an evidentiary hearing on a postconviction habeas petition where the record does not indicate that the petitioner personally waived the right to be present. Because the record did not support a valid waiver of the statutory right to be present at the evidentiary hearing, the court concluded that the district court violated Harris’s statutory right to be present at the hearing. The court could not say that this error was harmless given the circumstances presented, and therefore reversed the district court’s order and remanded for a new evidentiary hearing. View "Harris v. Warden" on Justia Law