Justia Nevada Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

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

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