Justia Nevada Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

In 2015, more than twenty-five years after remittitur issued from Appellant’s direct appeal in 1989, Appellant filed a petition for postconviction relief. The petition was both successive and untimely filed. The district court denied the petition, concluding that the petition was procedurally barred and that Appellant failed to demonstrate the good cause and prejudice required for consideration of the petition. Appellant appealed, arguing that the district court erred in failing to consider his good cause argument regarding Riley v. McDaniel. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that, even assuming that Riley would provide good cause, Appellant did not establish prejudice because he did not demonstrate that the result of trial would have been different had a different instruction been given. View "Leavitt v. State" on Justia Law

The Clark County grand jury indicted Defendant for the murder of his wife. Prior to trial, Defendant sought to dismiss the indictment, arguing that the district attorney violated Nev. Rev. Stat. 172.145(2) by failing to submit exculpatory evidence in the State’s file to the grand jury. Specifically, Defendant asserted that the district attorney improperly failed to present to the grand jury two notes from his deceased wife’s hospital chart. The district court denied relief, concluding that no violation of section 172.145(2) occurred because the district attorney was not aware of the notes and their potential exculpatory value when he presented the case to the grand jury. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district attorney did not violate section 172.145(2). View "Mayo v. Eighth Judicial District Court" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty of one count of trafficking in a controlled substance. During a break in deliberations, two jurors individually conducted experiments testing the parties’ theories of the case. The next morning, the jury returned a unanimous guilty verdict. Defendant filed a motion to declare a mistrial and order a new trial due to juror misconduct. The district court denied the motion, concluding that there was no reasonable probability that the verdict was affected by the two jurors’ independent experiments. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the district court erred in denying Appellant’s motion for a new trial because (1) the juror misconduct in this case was prejudicial, and (2) the trial court’s failure to give a jury instruction prohibiting jurors from conducting independent investigations or experiments constituted a reversible error. Remanded. View "Bowman v. State" on Justia Law

In 2002, Defendant was cited in Utah for driving under the influence of alcohol. The offense was a third-degree felony under Utah law. In 2004, Defendant pleaded guilty to the offense. In 2013, Defendant was arrested in Nevada for suspicion of driving under the influence. The State subsequently charged Defendant with felony DUI because of her 2004 Utah felony conviction. The district court adjudicated the offense as a category B felony, determining that Defendant’s 2004 felony DUI conviction in Utah was a violation involving “the same or similar conduct” as Nevada’s felony DUI statute. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Utah’s DUI laws contain a longer recidivism window but punish the same or similar conduct as Nevada’s DUI laws, and therefore, the district court correctly adjudicated Defendant’s instant offense as a felony; and (2) Defendant’s prosecutorial misconduct claims were without merit. View "Sindelar v. State" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty of battery with intent to commit a crime. Defendant appealed, arguing that the district court erred when it failed to give his proffered instruction on battery as a lesser-included offense of battery with intent to commit a crime. The Supreme Court agreed and reversed Defendant’s judgment of conviction, holding (1) Defendant was entitled to an instruction on battery as a lesser-included offense of battery with intent to commit a crime, and the district court erroneously declined to give such an instruction; and (2) the error was not harmless. Remanded for a new trial. View "Manning v. State" on Justia Law

After a trial, Defendant was found guilty of vehicular manslaughter in violation of Nev. Rev. Stat. 484B.657(1). Defendant appealed, arguing that certain phrases in the statute rendered section 484B.657(1) void for vagueness. The district court upheld Defendant’s conviction without addressing Defendant’s arguments concerning the vagueness of the phrases at issue. Defendant subsequently filed a petition for a writ of certiorari challenging the constitutionality of section 484B.657(1). The Supreme Court granted the petition, holding (1) section 484B.657(1) is not unconstitutionally void for vagueness and does not violate due process; but (2) the district court erred in upholding the constitutionality of the statute without interpreting the challenged phrases. View "Cornella v. Justice Court" on Justia Law

After a bench trial, the justice court convicted Jennifer Schneider of misdemeanor driving under the influence. The district court reversed Schneider’s conviction and sentence and remanded the matter for a new trial, concluding that the justice court’s comments at sentencing showed bias that undermined Schneider’s sentence and her right to a fair trial. The State filed an original writ petition challenging the district court’s decision. The Supreme Court granted the petition in part, holding (1) the district court did not err when it found the justice court’s comments at sentencing indicated a bias against Schneider; but (2) because there was no showing that the bias toward Schneider at sentencing interfered with her right to a fair trial, the district court erred in fashioning a remedy without accounting for the state of the evidence of Schneider’s guilt. View "State v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Appellant was convicted of first-degree kidnapping with substantial bodily harm and possession of a controlled substance. Appellant appealed, arguing that Nevada lacked territorial jurisdiction to prosecute him for first-degree kidnapping with substantial bodily harm because the offenses originated in Illinois. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Nevada had territorial jurisdiction over both the kidnapping charge and the substantial bodily harm enhancement because, while the kidnapping began in Illinois, it continued in Nevada, where Appellant restricted the victim from seeking medical treatment, causing the victim prolonged physical pain; (2) the State gave proper notice of grand jury proceedings; and (3) the district court’s mistake in failing to include second-degree kidnapping on the verdict form was not reversible error. View "McNamara v. State" on Justia Law

Appellant was found guilty of assault with a deadly weapon. While he was still imprisoned, Appellant filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel and appeal deprivation. The district court granted the petition in part, concluding that Appellant was wrongfully deprived of an appeal. The court did not address Appellant’s other claims. Appellant then appealed from the judgment of conviction. The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. After Appellant was released from physical custody, he filed a supplement to his petition for writ of habeas corpus, again alleging ineffective assistance of counsel. The district court dismissed the petition as moot because Appellant was no longer in custody, on probation, or on parole. The Supreme Court reversed, (1) a habeas petition challenging the validity of a judgment of conviction filed while the petitioner is imprisoned or under supervision as a probationer or parolee does not become moot when the petitioner is released if there are continuing collateral consequences stemming from that conviction; (2) a criminal conviction creates a presumption that collateral consequences exist; and (3) therefore, the district court erred in summarily dismissing the petition in this case as moot. View "Martinez-Hernandez v. State" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Appellant was convicted of, among other offenses, murder with the use of a deadly weapon and ten counts of discharging a firearm at or into a structure. On appeal, Appellant’s argued, inter alia, that double jeopardy precludes multiple convictions for discharging a firearm are impermissible based on multiple discharges that occurred in quick succession. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the word “discharges,” as used in Nev. Rev. Stat. 202.285(1) unambiguously allows for a separate conviction each time a bullet leaves the gun, and therefore, Appellant’s ten convictions for discharging a firearm were not redundant; (2) sufficient evidence supported Defendant’s convictions for first-degree murder, attempted murder, conspiracy to commit murder, and discharging a firearm into an occupied structure; and (3) the criminal information was not defective because it did not name the identity of a coconspirator. View "Washington v. State" on Justia Law