Justia Nevada Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Nevada Supreme Court affirmed the district court's denial of defendant's postconviction petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The court held that the filing of a bar complaint does not create a per se conflict of interest that rises to the level of a violation of the Sixth Amendment, and defendant did not assert that the filing of the bar complaint adversely affected his counsel's behavior or caused his counsel to defend him less diligently, and thus he did not present a conflict-of-interest claim that would entitle him to relief. Therefore, the district court did not err by denying defendant's claim without conducting an evidentiary hearing. View "Jefferson v. Nevada" on Justia Law

The Nevada Supreme Court affirmed the district court's order revoking probation and an amended judgment of conviction. The court held that in an appeal taken from an amended judgment of conviction, the appellant may only raise challenges that arise from the amendments made to the original judgment of conviction. In this case, defendant did not challenge the amendments made to his original judgment of conviction. View "Jackson v. State" on Justia Law

The Nevada Supreme Court affirmed defendant's conviction for battery with the use of a deadly weapon. The court held that, within the context of battery, "deadly weapon" included an instrument which, under the circumstances in which it is used, is readily capable of causing substantial bodily harm or death. The court has consistently defined "deadly weapon" according to both the functional and the inherently dangerous definitions, and thus the district court acted within its discretion in settling the jury instructions in the context of battery according to the functional definition. Therefore, the screwdriver defendant used was considered a deadly weapon. View "Rodriguez v. Nevada" on Justia Law

The Nevada Supreme Court granted a writ of mandamus instructing the district court to vacate its order denying petitioner's motion for expert services at public expense and to reconsider the motion. In Widdis v. Second Judicial District Court, 114 Nev. 1224, 968 P.2d 1165 (1998), the court held that, notwithstanding the ability to retain counsel, a defendant is entitled to reasonable and necessary defense services at public expense if the defendant demonstrates both indigency and a need for the requested services. In this case, the court clarified the definition of an indigent person as well as the demonstration of need sufficient for a request for defense services. The court made clear that Widdis does not require an indigent defendant to request a sum certain before a motion for defense services at public expense can be considered or granted. View "Brown v. The Eighth Judicial District Court" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed in part and vacated and reversed in part Defendant’s convictions of child abuse and neglect, twenty-nine counts of use of a child in the production of pornography, ten counts of possession of visual presentation depicting the sexual conduct of a child, and open or gross lewdness. The court held (1) the State properly charged Defendant with two counts of violating Nev. Rev. Stat. 200.710(2) for each video file that depicted two minors; (2) Defendant was improperly convicted under section 200.730 on a per-image basis without showing the mechanics of how Defendant recorded and saved the various video files and digital images of children on his laptop; (3) Nevada’s statutes barring the “sexual portrayal” of minors do not implicate protected speech and are not unconstitutionally vague; (4) there was insufficient evidence to support Defendant’s conviction under Nev. Rev. Stat. 201.210; and (5) Defendant’s asserted trial errors did not warrant reversal. View "Shue v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Appellant’s convictions for burglary, robbery, coercion, and other crimes and Appellant’s sentence as a habitual criminal. The court held (1) contrary to Appellant’s argument on appeal, the district court properly considered Appellant’s prior conviction from 1984 in sentencing Appellant as a habitual criminal because the conviction was not stale, and the prior conviction resulting from an offense Appellant committed as a minor could be used for habitual criminal sentencing; (2) Appellant’s sentence did not violate the Eighth Amendment; and (3) because there was no error established by Appellant on this appeal, there was none to cumulate. View "Mullner v. State" on Justia Law

The general rule of privilege between psychologist and patient set forth in Nev. Rev. Stat. 49.209 applies when a criminal defendant seeks records related to a patient who is court-ordered to partake in therapy.J.A., a minor, was placed on probation for soliciting prostitution. As a condition of probation, J.A. was required to complete counseling with Dr. Shera Bradley. Based on J.A.’s statements to the police, Dontae Hudson was charged with first-degree kidnapping, sex trafficking of a child under the age of sixteen, and related crimes. Hudson filed a motion for discovery, including requests for J.A.’s counseling records. The district court ordered that Dr. Bradley disclose J.A.’s counseling records for in camera review. Dr. Bradley filed this petition for relief in the form of a writ of mandamus or prohibition challenging the discovery order. The Supreme Court granted the petition and directed the clerk of court to issue a writ of prohibition ordering the district court to halt the production of the documents, holding that the psychologist-patient privilege applies to J.A. and Dr. Bradley’s confidential communications, and Hudson failed to show that an exception to the privilege applied or that the privilege was waived. View "Bradley v. Eighth Judicial District Court" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court convicting Defendant of first-degree murder and robbery and his sentence of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. The court held (1) under the circumstances of this case, the district court did not deprive Defendant of his right under the Confrontation Clause and the Due Process Clause to be present at every stage of the trial when it excused Defendant from the courtroom for two hours on the first day of trial due to his disruptive conduct; (2) the district court did not abuse its discretion in allowing the lead investigator in this case to testify that his investigation into the victim’s death led to Defendant’s arrest; (3) the district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to instruct the jury on voluntary manslaughter; and (4) there was sufficient evidence to support Defendant’s convictions. View "Collins v. State" on Justia Law

Defense counsel’s affirmative misrepresentation regarding filing a postconviction petition and subsequent abandonment of Petitioner can be an impediment external to the defense to satisfy cause of the delay under Nev. Rev. Stat. 34.726(1)(a) for filing an untimely petition.Petitioner filed an untimely postconviction petition for a writ of habeas corpus stemming from his conviction of battery with the use of a deadly weapon resulting in substantial bodily harm. Petitioner stated that he had good cause for the delay in filing his petition because he believed his counsel had filed a petition on his behalf, his belief was reasonable, and he filed the petition within a reasonable time of discovering his petition had not been filed. The district court dismissed the petition as time-barred. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded for further proceedings, holding (1) to demonstrate good cause for the delay in filing an untimely petition, a petitioner must show four factors; and (2) Petitioner demonstrated good cause for his delay under this test. View "Harris v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court granted the petition for a writ of mandamus filed by Petitioner, the City of Las Vegas challenging an appellate court’s review of unpreserved trial error, holding that the district court, acting in its appellate capacity, considered an unpreserved claim but ignored the clear record and speculated as to facts that could demonstrate error.After the municipal court found Steven Kamide guilty of domestic battery and simple battery, Kamide appealed, alleging for the first time a violation of the witness exclusion rule, Nev. Rev. Stat. 50.155(1). The district court found that the rule had been violated and concluded that prejudice had to be presumed because the record did not clearly show the absence of prejudice. The Supreme Court reversed the district court’s reversal of Kamide’s convictions, holding that the district court arbitrarily and capriciously exercised its discretion under the plain error rule to consider an issue that was not preserved for appeal. View "City of Las Vegas v. Eighth Judicial District Court" on Justia Law