Justia Nevada Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

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

The State of Nevada charged Matthew Desavio with a felony for making threats or conveying false information concerning an act of terrorism. Desavio was found incompetent to stand trial and was ordered to be transferred for competency restoration treatment. However, the State failed to transfer him, leading to a nearly 90-day delay. Desavio moved to dismiss the charge due to this delay, and the district court initially held the Nevada Division of Public and Behavioral Health in contempt and fined them, but eventually dismissed the criminal complaint without prejudice.The Eighth Judicial District Court in Clark County reviewed the case and dismissed the criminal complaint without prejudice due to the State's failure to transfer Desavio for competency restoration treatment. The State appealed, arguing that the district court lacked a legal basis to dismiss the case under the competency statutes and the recent decision in State v. Gonzalez. The district court found that the delay violated Desavio's due process rights, which constituted ongoing prejudice.The Supreme Court of Nevada reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision. The court held that the dismissal without prejudice was appropriate to remedy the ongoing prejudice to Desavio's due process rights. The court noted that the district court had tried lesser sanctions, such as holding the Division in contempt and imposing fines, but these measures proved ineffective. The Supreme Court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the charge without prejudice, as it was a necessary step to address the violation of Desavio's due process rights. View "State v. Desavio" on Justia Law

Brandon Urias was charged with a misdemeanor for allegedly violating NRS 484E.040 after crashing into a parked car in a Walmart parking lot and failing to leave a note with his contact information. The justice court found Urias guilty and imposed a fine. Urias appealed to the district court, arguing that NRS 484E.040 is not enforceable on private property and that the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to convict him. The district court denied his appeal, concluding that the statute's language did not limit its enforceability to specific locations.Urias then filed a petition for a writ of certiorari with the Supreme Court of Nevada. The Supreme Court reviewed the case to determine whether NRS 484E.040 applies to private property. The court examined the statutory language and legislative history, concluding that NRS 484E.040 does not apply to private property, such as parking lots, but is limited to highways to which the public has access or highways to which persons have access as invitees or licensees.The Supreme Court of Nevada held that NRS 484E.040 was not enforceable against Urias for the incident in the Walmart parking lot. Consequently, the court granted Urias's petition and directed the district court to vacate its order denying Urias's appeal and to proceed in a manner consistent with the Supreme Court's opinion. View "URIAS VS. DIST. CT." on Justia Law

The appellant, Samuel Cocking, was skateboarding in Carson City with a concealed firearm that lacked a serial number. After tripping, he was ridiculed by a group of minors, leading to a verbal altercation. The minors' father, Philip Eubanks, approached, and Cocking shot and killed him. Cocking was charged with open murder, carrying a concealed firearm without a permit, and possession of a firearm not imprinted with a serial number. He pleaded no contest to involuntary manslaughter, carrying a concealed firearm without a permit, and possession of a firearm not imprinted with a serial number, reserving the right to appeal the constitutionality of the gun charges.The First Judicial District Court in Carson City denied Cocking's motion to dismiss the gun charges, ruling that the statutes did not violate his Second Amendment rights. Cocking was sentenced to consecutive prison terms totaling 43-108 months.The Supreme Court of Nevada reviewed the case. Cocking argued that the statutes regulating concealed carry and unserialized firearms were unconstitutional under the Second Amendment, as clarified by the U.S. Supreme Court in New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass'n, Inc. v. Bruen. The court held that the concealed carry statute did not violate the Second Amendment because it only regulated the manner of carrying firearms, not the right to carry them openly. The court also held that the statute requiring firearms to have serial numbers did not infringe on the Second Amendment, as unserialized firearms are not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes.Additionally, the court found that the district court did not abuse its discretion at sentencing by relying on impalpable or highly suspect evidence. The Supreme Court of Nevada affirmed the judgment of conviction. View "COCKING VS. STATE" on Justia Law

The appellant, Quashawn Sheridan, was on probation for a category D felony related to sex offender registration. While on probation, he was convicted of two misdemeanors: obstructing or resisting an officer by flight and failure to register with law enforcement as a convicted person within 48 hours. The district court revoked his probation, concluding that these misdemeanors were nontechnical violations because they constituted crimes of violence.The Second Judicial District Court in Washoe County revoked Sheridan's probation based on the belief that his misdemeanors were nontechnical violations. The court characterized his actions as violent crimes, which under Nevada law, would justify probation revocation without the need for graduated sanctions.The Supreme Court of Nevada reviewed the case and determined that the crimes Sheridan was convicted of do not categorically constitute crimes of violence. The court emphasized that specific factual findings are necessary to classify these misdemeanors as violent crimes. The court found that the district court did not provide sufficient factual support to justify its conclusion that Sheridan's actions were violent. Consequently, the Supreme Court of Nevada reversed the district court's decision to revoke Sheridan's probation and remanded the case for further proceedings. The district court was instructed to consider the imposition of graduated sanctions for Sheridan's technical probation violations, as required by NRS 176A.510. View "SHERIDAN VS. STATE" on Justia Law