Justia Nevada Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

After a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty of two counts of first-degree murder and related felonies. Defendant was sentenced to death. Defendant filed a postconviction habeas proceeding but was denied relief. Defendant then filed a second postconviction petition for a writ of habeas corpus, claiming that the ineffective assistance of the attorney who represented him in the first postconviction proceeding excused the procedural bars to claims raised in his second petition. The district court denied the petition as both untimely and successive. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court properly denied the petition as procedurally barred because, although Defendant filed his petition within a reasonable time after the postconviction-counsel claims became available, those claims lacked merit, and therefore, Defendant had not demonstrated good cause for an untimely petition or good cause and prejudice for a second petition. View "Rippo v. State" on Justia Law

Appellant pleaded guilty, pursuant to Alford, to voluntary manslaughter and child abuse, neglect, or endangerment with substantial bodily harm. After entry of Appellant’s guilty plea, but before sentencing, the State obtained an affidavit relevant to Appellant’s case. The State did not disclose the affidavit to Appellant but used the affidavit at Appellant’s sentencing hearing to impeach Appellant’s girlfriend after she provided a favorable oral statement to the court on Appellant’s behalf. The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of conviction, holding (1) because the affidavit was not favorable to Appellant, there was no Brady violation; (2) the prosecutor engaged in misconduct by failing to disclose the affidavit in accordance with the State’s open-file discovery policy, but the misconduct did not warrant a new sentencing hearing; and (3) the district court erred by not issuing a written order granting a media outlet’s request to record Appellant’s sentencing hearing and by not making the requisite particularized findings on the record, but the errors were harmless. View "Quisano v. State" on Justia Law

On May 12, 2009, the State filed a juvenile delinquency petition charging Appellant with burglary and grand larceny. On August 16, 2010, the State filed a petition to certify Appellant for criminal proceedings as an adult. The juvenile court granted the State’s petition and certified Appellant for criminal proceedings as an adult. After a trial, Appellant was found guilty. The Supreme Court reversed the district court’s judgment of conviction, holding (1) the juvenile court maintains jurisdiction over a juvenile even if it does not make its final disposition of the case within the one-year period provided by statute; but (2) there was insufficient evidence to convict Appellant of burglary and grand larceny. View "Barber v. State" on Justia Law

Defendant, who was a juvenile at the time he committed his crimes, was sentenced to serve fourteen consecutive life terms with the possibility of parole plus a consecutive term of ninety-two years in prison. In 2011, Defendant filed a pro se post-conviction petition for a writ of habeas corpus, claiming that his sentence constituted cruel and unusual punishment pursuant to Graham v. Florida. The district court granted Defendant’s petition and ordered a new sentencing hearing, determining (1) Graham prohibited aggregate sentences that were the functional equivalent of life without the possibility of parole, and (2) Graham also provided good cause and prejudice to overcome the procedural bar of Defendant’s untimely and successive petition. Although the Supreme Court agreed that Graham precludes aggregate sentences that constitute the functional equivalent of life without the possibility of parole against nonhomicide juvenile offenders and that the decision in Graham provides good cause and actual prejudice for Defendant’s untimely and successive petition, the Court nonetheless vacated the district court’s order, holding that A.B. 267 remedies Defendant’s unconstitutional sentence. View "State v. Boston" on Justia Law

Appellant was convicted of first-degree murder and related crimes for the death of a member of a motorcycle gang after a brawl between two motorcycle gangs. The Supreme Court reversed Appellant’s judgment of conviction and remanded for a new trial, holding (1) the district court abused its discretion when it refused to answer two questions from the jury during deliberations; (2) the district court abused its discretion when it refused to bifurcate the gang-enhancement portion of the trial from the guilt phase; and (3) the cumulative effect of these and other errors deprived Appellant of his right to a fair trial. View "Gonzalez v. State" on Justia Law

Petitioner was convicted of violating Carson City Municipal Code (CCMC) 3.04.050. CCMC 3.04.050(1) makes it “unlawful for any person to hinder, obstruct, resist, delay, molest or threaten to hinder, obstruct, resist, delay or molest any…member of the sheriff’s office…in the discharge of his official duties.” Petitioner appealed, arguing that CCMC 3.04.050(1) is unconstitutionally overbroad and vague because it restricts constitutional speech. The district court affirmed. The Supreme Court held that CCMC 3.04.050(1) is unconstitutionally overboard because is not narrowly tailored to prohibit only disorderly conduct or fighting words and is unconstitutionally vague because it lacks sufficient guidelines and gives the sheriff too much discretion in its enforcement. Remanded to the district court with instructions to enter an order reversing Petitioner’s conviction in part on the grounds that CCMC 8.04.050(1) is unconstitutional on its face and to determine whether Petitioner may properly be charged under the remainder of CCMC 8.04.050. View "Scott v. First Judicial Dist. Court" on Justia Law

The State charged Defendant in a criminal complaint with a category C felony under Nev. Rev. Stat. 453.337(2)(b) but did not allege a prior conviction as required by statute. The justice court concluded that the State did not meet its burden of proof for the category C felony and discharged Defendant. The State moved for leave to file an information by affidavit and included a proposed information charging Defendant with a category D felony under Nev. Rev. Stat. 453.337(2)(a). The motion was filed sixty-three days after the justice court discharged Defendant. The district court granted the State’s motion, concluding that the State’s delay in filing the motion did not prejudice Defendant. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not abuse its discretion by finding that Defendant failed to demonstrate actual prejudice by the State’s delay in filing the motion to file an information by affidavit; and (2) the district court did not err by allowing the State to file the information by affidavit based on a finding that the justice court committed egregious error that resulted in Defendant’s discharge. View "Moultrie v. State" on Justia Law

During a criminal investigation, the State had located and seized approximately $125,000 from bank accounts kept by Bryan Fergason at Bank of America. The State filed a complaint against the seized money pleading a single cause of action in forfeiture and alleging that the seized money represented proceeds attributable to the commission or attempted commission of a felony. Following the Supreme Court’s affirmance of Fergason’s criminal proceedings, the district court granted summary judgment in favor of the State. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the district court improperly granted summary judgment because the State failed to present sufficient evidence to satisfy its burden of showing an absence of genuine issue of material fact regarding whether the funds seized from Fergason’s bank accounts were subject to forfeiture as proceeds attributable to the commission of a felony, and therefore, the burden of production did not shift to Fergason. Remanded. View "Fergason v. Las Vegas Metro. Police Dep’t" on Justia Law

Appellant was found guilty by a jury of first-degree murder with the use of a deadly weapon, burglary, and robbery. The Supreme Court affirmed. Appellant later filed a third postconviction petition for a writ of habeas corpus, alleging newly discovered evidence and asserting nine claims. Appellant supported his petition with declarations that, if true, may establish a gateway claim of actual innocence. The district court dismissed Appellant’s petition without allowing discovery or conducting an evidentiary hearing. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the district court improperly discounted the declarations offered in support of Appellant’s petition, which presented specific factual allegations of Appellant’s innocence that were not belied by the record and were sufficient to merit discovery and an evidentiary hearing on Appellant’s gateway actual innocence claim. View "Berry v. State" on Justia Law

Nev. Rev. Stat. 200.160 states that homicide is justified in response to a reasonable apprehension of the commission of a felony or in the actual resistance of an attempted felony, but the statute does not specify the type of felony. Defendant was charged with battery with the use of a deadly weapon and attempted assault with the use of a deadly weapon for lighting the victim on fire during an altercation at a gas station. At trial, Defendant claimed that his actions were a justifiable battery because he reasonably believed the victim was committing felony coercion against him at the time of the incident. The jury found Defendant guilty. Defendant appealed, arguing that the district court gave a jury instruction that was an incorrect statement of Nevada law and that his conviction for attempted assault was legally impossible. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the use of deadly force in response to a felony is justified only when the person poses a threat of serious bodily injury, and the amount of force used must be reasonable and necessary under the circumstances; and (2) attempted assault under Nev. Rev. Stat. 200.471(1)(a)(2) is not legally impossible. View "Newell v. State" on Justia Law