Justia Nevada Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Defendant was charged with being an ex-felon in possession of a firearm, receiving or possessing stolen goods, and carrying a concealed weapon. Defendant moved to suppress the handgun evidence and to dismiss the charges, arguing that his detention after a law enforcement officer confirmed that he was not in violation of curfew was unconstitutional and, therefore, the encounter evolved into an illegal seizure that resulted in the discovery of the firearm. The district court denied Defendant’s motion to suppress. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the officer’s continued detention of Defendant, after he dispelled any suspicion that Defendant was committing a crime, constituted an illegal seizure and should have been suppressed because no intervening circumstance purged the taint of the illegal seizure. View "Torres v. State" on Justia Law

Appellant, an inmate at Lovelock Correctional Center, filed a petition seeking mandamus and injunctive relief to compel Respondent, Nevada’s Chief Medical Officer, to comply with Nev. Rev. Stat. 209.382(1)(b) by examining the nutritional adequacy of inmate diets and making the required semiannual reports to the Board of State Prison Commissioners regarding her findings. The district court denied the petition. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that Respondent failed to fulfill the duties imposed on her by section 209.382(1)(b). Remanded to the district court with instructions to issue a writ of mandamus compelling Respondent to comply with the requirements of section 209.382(1)(b) in accordance with this opinion. View "Stockmeier v. Green" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of first-degree murder. Defendant’s theory of defense was that another man, Robert Belsey, killed the victim. In furtherance of his theories, Defendant designated an expert to testify on police interrogation techniques to establish that Defendant falsely incriminated himself. Defendant also sought to introduce evidence of two incidents of domestic violence in which Belsey had previously been involved. The district court excluded the evidence. The Supreme Court affirmed with the exception of a correction ordered with respect to the appropriate restitution, holding (1) the district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding the evidence; and (2) two unobjected-to comments by the district judge that Defendant asserted improperly vouched for a police officer’s credibility and disparaged the defense did not amount to plain error. View "Brant v. State" on Justia Law

Defendant was stopped for speeding and admitted to having smoked marijuana five hours before the stop. Law enforcement officers informed Defendant that they would perform a blood draw, during which Defendant struggled by striking two officers. The blood draw showed that Defendant had THC in his blood. Defendant was charged with unlawful use or being under the influence of a controlled substance, among other offenses. Defendant was convicted of all counts. On appeal, Defendant argued, among other things, that the warrantless blood draw violated the Fourth Amendment. The Supreme Court held (1) the natural dissipation of marijuana in the blood stream does not constitute a per se exigent circumstance justifying a warrantless search; (2) Nev. Rev. Stat. 484C.160(7), which permits officers to use force to obtain a blood sample from a person, is unconstitutional, and the blood draw in this case was unlawful because Defendant did not submit to it; but (3) because the blood draw was taken in good faith, the exclusionary rule did not apply, and the Fourth Amendment violation therefore did not warrant reversal of the judgment of conviction. View "Byars v. State" on Justia Law

Appellant was convicted of battery with a deadly weapon causing substantial bodily harm. On appeal, Appellant argued that the district court erred in denying his pretrial motion for an order mandating the prosecutor to provide a summary of any jury panel information gathered and developed by the prosecution that was inaccessible to the defense. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Appellant established neither a constitutional nor statutory basis for the Court to reverse his conviction based on the district court’s denial of his motion to compel disclosure of prosecution-gathered juror background information. View "Artiga-Morales v. State" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Appellant was found guilty of first-degree kidnapping and first-degree murder of his wife. Appellant was sentenced to death for the murder. The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of conviction, holding (1) the district court did not clearly err in concluding that the State’s use of six of its nine peremptory challenges to remove female veniremembers did not give rise to an inference of gender discrimination, and the State’s use of a peremptory challenge to exclude an African-American veniremember did not violate Batson v. Kentucky; (2) the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions; (3) the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Appellant’s motion to represent himself; (4) the district court did not plainly err in instructing the jury regarding the definition of mitigation; and (5) the remainder of Appellant’s allegations of error were without merit. View "Watson v. State" on Justia Law

Defendant was charged with burglary, robbery, and abuse or neglect of an older person. After the jury venire entered the courtroom for voir dire, Defendant’s counsel sought to strike the venire on the grounds that it contained no Black prospective jurors and thus did not reach a fair cross section of the community. After granting an evidentiary hearing but before holding it, the district judge sua sponte denied Defendant’s motion, concluding that the jury-selection process did not systematically exclude Black citizens. The jury panel was subsequently selected and sworn in and Defendant was found guilty of burglary and robbery. The Supreme Court reversed Defendant’s convictions, holding that it is structural error for a district court to deny a motion to strike a jury venire after granting an evidentiary hearing but before completing the hearing. Remanded for a new trial. View "Buchanan v. State" on Justia Law

After Appellant was arrested for child abuse his daughter was placed in the custody of Washoe County Social Services (Social Services). The family court ordered Appellant to pay child support to Social Services. After Appellant pleaded guilty to one felony count of child abuse, Social Services sought restitution. Appellant objected to the amount sought by Social Services on the grounds that the family court had already entered a cost-of-care order. The district court ordered Appellant to pay restitution to Social Services, concluding that the family court’s order, which was based on Appellant’s ability to pay, did not affect the jurisdiction of the district court as to its criminal restitution order. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court has jurisdiction to impose restitution to the State for the cost of child care in child abuse cases where the family court has already imposed an obligation on the defendant for the costs of supporting the child, but the district court must offset the restitution amount by the amount of the support obligation imposed by the family court. View "Major v. State" on Justia Law

Appellant, an inmate, filed a timely post-conviction petition for writ of habeas corpus, which the district court denied on the merits. Appellant later filed a second post-conviction petition for a writ of habeas corpus, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel. Appellant’s petition was untimely and successive, but Appellant argued he had good cause to excuse the procedural bars because his first post-conviction counsel had provided ineffective assistance by failing to present these claims in his first post-conviction petition. At issue in this case was whether, in light of the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Martinez v. Ryan, the ineffective assistance of post-conviction counsel may constitute good cause under Nev. Rev. Stat. 34.726(1) and Nev. Rev. Stat. 34.810 to allow a noncapital petitioner to file an untimely and successive post-conviction petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The district court dismissed Appellant’s petition. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Martinez does not alter the Court’s prior decisions that a petitioner has no constitutional right to post-conviction counsel and that post-conviction counsel’s performance does not constitute good cause to excuse the statutory procedural bars unless the appointment of that counsel was mandated by statute. View "Brown v. McDaniel" on Justia Law

The question presented in this case was whether a person can burglarize his or her own home. Plaintiff was charged with burglary while in possession of a firearm and murder with the use of a deadly weapon for entering the home he owned and previously shared with his estranged wife and fatally shooting his wife. The district court ultimately dismissed the burglary charge, finding that one cannot legally burglarize his or her own home where there is no legal impediment or restraining order of some sort otherwise limiting the ability of the owner to access his or her own property. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that a person cannot commit burglary of a home when he or she has an absolute right to enter the home. View "State v. White" on Justia Law