Justia Nevada Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

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

After a jury trial, Appellant was found guilty of first-degree murder with the use of a deadly weapon. Appellant was sentenced to death. Appellant filed a post-conviction petition for a writ of habeas corpus that was untimely and successive. The district court dismissed the petition as procedurally barred. The Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s order dismissing the petition, holding that Appellant was not entitled to a writ of habeas corpus where (1) Appellant failed to demonstrate good cause to excuse his procedurally barred post-conviction petition for a writ of habeas corpus; and (2) Appellant failed to demonstrate that he was actually innocent of either the crime or the death penalty. View "Lisle v. State" on Justia Law

William Plise, a judgment debtor, did not attend his scheduled debtor’s examinations in the district court. Eliot Alper, the judgment creditor, sought an order to show cause why Plise should not be held in contempt of court. Before the hearing on that motion, Plise filed a bankruptcy petition. Alper participated in the bankruptcy proceeding and obtained an order from the bankruptcy court granting relief from the automatic stay and allowing the district court to conduct a hearing and enter an order with regard to Plise’s alleged criminal contempt. The district court found Plise guilty of contempt of court and sentenced him to twenty-one days incarceration. The court, however, conditionally allowed Plise to avoid criminal contempt punishment. Alper filed this petition seeking a writ of prohibition arguing that the district court exceeded the scope of the bankruptcy court’s order granting relief from the automatic stay when it allowed him to avoid incarceration by participating in a debtor’s examination. The Supreme Court granted the writ of prohibition, concluding that the district court’s order exceeded the scope of the bankruptcy court’s lift stay order because a contempt order that permits a judgment debtor to purge incarceration is civil, rather than criminal, in nature. View "Alper v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court" on Justia Law

Appellant, an inmate, filed a civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. 1983 against Respondents, the Lovelock Correctional Center law library supervisor and an inmate library clerk, alleging that Respondents failed to mail his confidential legal mail and retaliated against him for filing a grievance. The district court dismissed Appellant’s entire complaint without prejudice based on Appellant's failure to exhaust his administrative remedies. In reaching its decision, the court concluded that the federal Prison Litigation Reform Act’s (PLRA) exhaustion requirement applied to Appellant’s section 1983 claims. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) because the PLRA’s exhaustion requirement applies to any inmate section 1983 civil rights claims regarding prison conditions, even if the complaint is filed in state court, the district court properly applied the exhaustion requirement in this case; and (2) because Appellant’s complaint alleged federal civil rights claims and not state tort claims, the district court did not have the discretion to stay the case to allow Appellant to exhaust his administrative remedies. View "Berry v. Feil" on Justia Law

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