Justia Nevada Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

After a jury trial, Appellant was convicted of entering a pawn shop with the intent to obtain money under false pretenses for selling stolen property through the retractable sliding tray of a pawn shop’s drive-through window. The Supreme Court vacated the conviction, holding that no reasonable person could conclude that the sliding tray fell within the outer boundary of the building that housed the pawn shop. Therefore, the evidence admitted at trial was insufficient to demonstrate that Appellant committed an unlawful entry of the building, as defined in the burglary statutes. View "Merlino v. State" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded no contest to one count of child abuse resulting in substantial bodily harm. Defendant filed a timely post-conviction petition for a writ of habeas corpus, arguing that he should be allowed to withdraw his plea because it was coerced and thus involuntary. The district court partially granted the petition, concluding that the actions of the Washoe County Department of Social Services (DSS) coerced Defendant into pleading no contest and that Defendant was entitled to withdraw his plea. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the State failed to demonstrate that the district court abused its discretion in partially granting the petition. View "State v. Smith" on Justia Law

Appellant pleaded guilty to coercion and preventing or dissuading a person from testifying. Appellant requested the district court to defer sentencing and assign him to a treatment program for alcohol abuse under Nev. Rev. Stat. 458 rather than impose a term of incarceration. The district court determined that the acts underlying the crime involved domestic violence but concluded that Appellant was ineligible for a treatment program. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court (1) erred by ruling that Appellant was not eligible for alcohol treatment under chapter 458 but did not abuse its discretion by denying Appellant’s request for assignment to a treatment program, as sentencing is ultimately left to the sound discretion of the district court; and (2) did not commit prejudicial error in regard to the remaining issues raised appeal, with the exception of the sentence imposed on the conviction for preventing or dissuading a person from testifying, as the sentence was illegal. View "Cassinelli v. State" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to two counts of attempted sexual assault. Before sentencing, Defendant moved to withdraw his plea, which allows a defendant who has pleaded guilty, but has not been sentenced, to petition to withdraw his plea. The district court denied the motion pursuant to Crawford v. State, concluding that Defendant’s plea was entered into knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently. Defendant appealed, arguing that Crawford’s exclusive focus on the validity of the plea lacks foundation in Nev. Rev. Stat. 176.165. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Crawford’s exclusive focus on the validity of the plea is not supported by section 176.165, and therefore, the district court may grant a defendant’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea before sentencing for permitting withdrawal would be fair and just; but (2) Appellant failed to present a fair and just reason favoring withdrawal of his plea. View "Stevenson v. State" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of various criminal offenses. During trial, the jury was permitted to hear testimony regarding an out-of-court “show-up” identification during which Defendant was identified by the victims as the perpetrator of the offenses. In addition, the victims testified at trial and identified Defendant in court as one of the perpetrators. On appeal, Defendant argued (1) the show-up was improperly conducted in violation of his constitutional due process rights, and (2) he was improperly sentenced as a habitual criminal. The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of conviction and sentence, holding (1) the identification procedure used in this case was not unnecessarily suggestive, and the identification was reliable, and therefore, the trial court did not plainly err by admitting the identification testimony into evidence; and (2) the district court properly exercised its discretion to sentence Defendant as a habitual criminal. View "Johnson v. State" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty of first-degree murder, child abuse and neglect with the use of a deadly weapon, and two counts of child abuse and neglect. Before sentencing, Defendant filed a timely motion for a new trial. The district court granted the motion. The State appealed from the order granting the motion for a new trial. The Supreme Court ordered the State to show cause why the appeal should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because the Court held in State v. Lewis that Nev. Rev. Stat. 177.015(1)(b) only permits appeals from district court orders resolving post-conviction motions for a new trial. The Supreme Court held that it had jurisdiction to consider the State’s appeal from an order granting a prejudgment motion for a new trial, holding (1) the plain language of section 177.015(1)(b) clearly authorizes an appeal from a prejudgment order granting a motion for a new trial; and (2) Lewis is overruled to the extent that it prohibits the State from pursuing its statutory right to appeal a prejudgment order granting a motion for a new trial. View "State v. Harris" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty of sexually assaulting a minor under fourteen years of age. Defendant appealed, arguing that the district court committed structural error requiring reversal when it failed to administer an oath to the jury venire, pursuant to Nev. Rev. Stat. 16.030(5), prior to commencing voir dire. The Supreme Court agreed with Defendant and reversed, holding (1) a district court commits structural error when it fails to administer the oath to potential jurors pursuant to section 16.030(5); and (2) therefore, Defendant in this case was denied due process and was entitled to a new trial. View "Barral v. State" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of conspiracy to commit robbery, burglary while in possession of a firearm, robbery with the use of a deadly weapon, and first-degree kidnapping with the use of a deadly weapon. Because he was non-native English speaker, Defendant asked on appeal that the Supreme Court adopt the test set forth by the Ninth Circuit in United States v. Garibay to find that his confession should not have been admitted at trial because he was not provided with the assistance of an interpreter during his police interrogation. The Supreme Court affirmed after declining to adopt the Garibay test as an comprehensive inquiry that always must be applied by district courts whenever an interrogated suspect is a non-native English speaker, holding (1) the district court did not err in concluding that Appellant’s confession was admissible; (2) the district court did not err in admitting documents proffered to tie Defendant to the scene; and (3) the evidence presented in this case was sufficient to sustain the convictions of kidnapping and robbery arising from the same course of conduct. View "Gonzales v. State" on Justia Law

Nev. Rev. Stat. 172.241 affords the target of a grand jury investigation the opportunity to testify before them. To facilitate exercise of that right, the statute requires that the target be given reasonable notice of the grand jury proceeding unless, after holding a closed hearing on the matter, the district court determines that adequate cause exists to withhold target notice. In this case, as grounds for withholding target notice from Defendant, the district attorney filed a written request and supporting affidavit asserting that Defendant would threaten or harm the victim and/or her family to prevent the victim from testifying. The district judge supervising the grand jury entered an order authorizing the State to withhold target notice without conducting a face-to-face hearing. The district judge to whom the criminal case was assigned after the indictment was entered granted Defendant’s motion to dismiss, concluding that the failure to hold the hearing rendered the indictment procedurally defective. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that section 172.241’s procedure for withholding notice is met if the State presents sufficient evidence to the district court, through written application and/or at oral argument, to allow the court to conclude by written order that adequate cause to withhold notice of the grand jury proceedings exists. View "State v. Beaudion" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of first-degree murder and related crimes. Defendant was sentenced to death. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not err by admitting testimony related to cell phone records and cell phone signal transmissions because, even though the State did not notice as an expert the cell phone company employee, who gave testimony relating to the transmission of cell phone signals, the error did not require reversal of the judgment of conviction; (2) the district court erroneously instructed the jury that the State had the burden of proving the “material elements” of an offense beyond a reasonable doubt without defining “material elements,” but the instruction did not warrant reversal; and (3) Defendant’s prior conviction for attempted battery with substantial bodily harm did not constitute a felony involving the use or threat of violence to the person of another for purposes of the aggravating circumstance set forth in Nev. Rev. Stat. 200.033(2)(b), but the jury’s consideration of this invalid aggravating circumstance did not warrant reversal of the death sentence. View "Burnside v. State" on Justia Law