Justia Nevada Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

After a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty of involuntary manslaughter, child abuse and neglect causing substantial bodily harm, and five counts of child abuse and neglect. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not err by ruling that child-abuse-and-neglect counts three through seven were continuing offenses and that the statute of limitations did not begin to run until the last alleged act of abuse or neglect was completed; (2) the district court did not err by denying Defendant’s pretrial motion to sever the abuse charges from the death charges; and (3) none of the remainder of Defendant’s claims warranted dismissal. View "Rimer v. State" on Justia Law

While investigating Defendant for alleged distribution of methamphetamines, law enforcement officers obtained a warrant authorizing a wiretap to intercept communications on two different cellular telephone numbers attributed to Defendant. The wiretap resulted in the interception of telephone calls and text messages, which led to Defendant’s arrest. Defendant was charged with four drug-trafficking-related felonies. Defendant filed a motion to compel further discovery, two motions to suppress evidence obtained from the wiretap, a motion to suppress evidence obtained from the search of his vehicle, and a motion for a Franks hearing. The district court denied the motions. Defendant pled guilty to trafficking in a controlled substance and was sentenced to life imprisonment. The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant’s judgment of conviction, holding that the district court did not err in finding that Nevada wiretap law permits the interception of Defendant’s cellular telephone calls and text messages. View "Sharpe v. State" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Appellant was found guilty of incest, four counts of sexual assault with a minor under the age of fourteen, and two counts of lewdness with a child under the age of fourteen. The Supreme Court affirmed the convictions, holding (1) the evidence presented at trial was sufficient to support a jury verdict finding Appellant guilty of incest and sexual assault with a minor; (2) the district court erred by denying Appellant’s motion to admit evidence of the victim’s prior sexual knowledge, but the error was harmless; (3) the district court erred by refusing to give Appellant’s proposed inverse instruction, but the error was harmless; and (4) the district court did not err by denying Appellant’s Batson challenges. View "Guitron v. State" on Justia Law

Jonathan Piper, who was convicted and imprisoned for burglary, was transferred to Casa Grande Traditional Housing, which was operated by Nevada Department of Corrections (NDOC) for offenders participating in NDOC’s work release program, to serve out the remainder of his sentence. Washworks Rainbow, LLC hired Piper to work at its car wash. Piper was severely injured during the course of his employment. York Claims Services, Inc., Washworks’ workers’ compensation insurance provider, denied coverage, asserting that NDOC was financially responsible for Piper’s workers’ compensation coverage under its own insurance program. An appeals officer found York liable for Piper’s workers’ compensation coverage. The district court set aside the decision of the appeals officer, concluding that NDOC was responsible for Piper’s workers’ compensation coverage pursuant to Nev. Rev. Stat. 616B.028(1). The Supreme Court reversed, holding that section 616B.082(1) does not apply to offenders like Piper, who are participating in the work release program. View "Nev. Dep't of Corr. v. York Claims Servs., Inc." on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of burglary, battery with intent to commit a crime with a victim sixty years of age or older, and robbery with a victim sixty years of age or older. During jury deliberations, the jury gave the court a note indicating that it was deadlocked. The jury was instructed to come back the next day and continue deliberating. The court failed to inform the parties of the note until the next day after the jury returned its verdict. Defendant appealed, arguing that the district court’s failure to notify and seek input from the parties after receiving the jury’s note that it was deadlocked constituted constitutional error. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court violated Defendant’s due process rights by responding to the note from the jury without notifying the parties or counsel; but (2) the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. View "Manning v. State" on Justia Law

Acting in their official capacities as Justices of the Peace, Respondents petitioned the district court for a writ of mandamus to compel Sheriff Allen Veil to enter information from all arrest warrants delivered to the Sheriff’s Office into the databases. The district court granted the motion, concluding that Nev. Rev. Stat. 248.100(1)(c), which requires sheriffs to “execute” warrants, imposed on Sheriff Veil a duty to enter warrant information into electronic databases. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that section 248.100(1)(c) neither contemplates nor imposes such a duty on sheriffs. View "Veil v. Bennett" on Justia Law

Appellant, then a teacher for the Washoe County School District (WCSD), pleaded guilty to possessing marijuana in his residence. Before Appellant completed his probation, the WCSD terminated his employment for immorality and conviction of a felony or of a crime involving moral turpitude. Appellant sought unemployment benefits. The Employment Security Division (ESD) denied benefits, finding that Appellant’s guilty plea established that the WCSD had terminated him for “workplace misconduct.” Under Nev. Rev. Stat. 453.3363, certain first-time drug offenders may avoid a criminal conviction if the offender pleads guilty and then successfully completes a probationary period, after which time the charges are dismissed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that unemployment benefits for workplace misconduct were erroneously denied where the WCSD relied on a felony conviction that didn’t exist to establish that Appellant committed disqualifying misconduct for which he was terminated. View "Hohenstein v. State, Employment Sec. Div." on Justia Law

In two separate cases, Defendant pleaded guilty to attempted lewdness with a child under the age of fourteen. In the first case, Defendant received the maximum possible sentence. In the second case, Defendant again received the maximum possible sentence. The district court ordered that the second sentence be served consecutively to the sentence previously imposed in the first case. At issue on appeal was Nev. Rev. Stat. 176.035(1), which expressly permits a district court to order that a sentence for a first felony offense when a defendant has already been sentenced to a term of imprisonment for another felony offense, be imposed either concurrently or consecutively to the first sentence. Defendant asserted that section 176.035(1) was unconstitutional because it affords “virtually unfettered discretion” to the district court to determine whether sentences for separate offenses should be imposed concurrently or consecutively. The Supreme Court affirmed the sentence, holding that section 176.035(1) is not unconstitutionally vague in violation of the Due Process Clause of the federal and state Constitutions, as the statute is comprehensible to persons of ordinary intelligence. View "Pitmon v. State" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of burglary while in possession of a deadly weapon and other related crimes. At trial, the jury was engaged in deliberations when the district court dismissed a juror and replaced that juror with an alternate juror. The court did not recall the jury to the courtroom or instruct it to restart deliberations. The reconstituted jury deliberated for several hours before convicting Defendant. A panel of the Supreme Court affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court’s failure to instruct the jury to restart deliberations when the alternate juror replaced the original juror was of constitutional dimension; (2) the error was subject to plain error review because Defendant did not preserve the issue; and (3) Defendant failed to demonstrate that the district court’s failure to instruct the reconstituted jury to restart deliberations rose to the level of plain error. View "Martinorellan v. State" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Appellant was convicted for violations of Nevada’s so-called bad check statute (“the statute”) when 14 casino markers totaling $384,000 payable to four Las Vegas casinos were returned for insufficient funds. On appeal, Appellant argued that (1) the district court erred when it refused to instruct the jury that a casino’s knowledge of insufficient funds negates the intent-to-defraud element under the statute or, alternatively, constitutes an affirmative defense; and (2) the statute violates the Nevada Constitution. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) because the casinos had no present knowledge of Appellant’s insufficiency of funds at the time the markers were executed, there was no evidence to negate the intent-to-defraud element, and therefore, the district court did not err by refusing the instruction; (2) Defendant was not entitled to an instruction on an affirmative defense; and (3) the statute is constitutional. View "Zahavi v. State" on Justia Law