Justia Nevada Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Defendant was charged with sexual assault and possession of child pornography. Defendant filed a motion to suppress evidence found on his computer pursuant to a search warrant because the warrant did not comply with Nev. Rev. Stat. 179.045(5)’s requirement that a warrant include a statement of probable cause or have the affidavit supporting the warrant attached. The district court granted the motion. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) pursuant to State v. Allen, failure to comply with section 179.045(5) triggers exclusion despite the U.S. Supreme Court’s contrary holding in United States v. Grubbs; and (2) in this case, the search warrant’s failure to comply with section 179.045(5) mandated exclusion of the evidence seized pursuant to the warrant.View "State v. Kincade" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Petitioner was convicted on several charges, including burglary, grand larceny, and obtaining property under false pretenses. After his appeal, Petitioner filed a post-conviction petition for a writ of habeas corpus challenging his judgment of conviction and sentence. Based on motions filed by Petitioner, including a motion for the appointment of post-conviction counsel, the district court entered an order designating Petitioner as a vexatious litigant and restricting his ability to file further documents in the district court. Petitioner sought a writ of mandamus directing the district court to vacate its order. The Supreme Court granted the petition, concluding that the district court acted arbitrarily and capriciously in designating Petitioner a vexatious litigant and entering the restrictive order. View "Jones v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Appellant was found guilty of one count of first-degree murder, based on both premeditated and felony murder, and two counts of sexual assault. On appeal, Appellant argued that the district court committed clear error by overruling his Batson objection and allowing the State to exercise peremptory challenges against several minority prospective jurors because the State’s explanations for striking the venirepersons were pretext for racial discrimination. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the district court clearly erred by allowing the State to exercise a peremptory challenge to dismiss an African-American prospective juror, as it was more likely than not that the State struck the prospective juror because of race. View "Conner v. State" on Justia Law

The State charged Petitioner with two counts of first-degree murder and associated offenses. The State filed a motion in the juvenile court seeking to unseal and release Petitioner's juvenile records to assist in the prosecution. The juvenile court issued an order broadly unsealing and releasing the records for "use in the prosecution." The Supreme Court granted Petitioner's petition for extraordinary relief, holding (1) a district attorney is not statutorily authorized to inspect a defendant's sealed juvenile records to obtain information that will be used against him or her in a subsequent proceeding; and (2) therefore, the juvenile court manifestly abused its discretion by granting the State's motion to inspect Petitioner's sealed juvenile records.View "Clay v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of possession of a stolen vehicle, grand larceny of a vehicle, and failure to stop on the signal of a police officer. During the trial, the State used a PowerPoint presentation in its opening statement. One slide showed Defendant's booking photograph with a pop-up that showed the word "guilty" written across Defendant's face. The Supreme Court reversed the conviction, holding (1) the district court erred and abused its discretion in allowing the prosecutor's booking-photo slide sequence in opening statement; and (2) because the State did not show beyond a reasonable doubt that the booking-photo slide sequence did not affect the jury's determination of Defendant's guilt, the error was not harmless. Remanded for a new trial.View "Watters v. State" on Justia Law

At issue in this appeal was the admissibility of expert testimony related to sex offender grooming behavior, which describes the conduct undertaken by an offender to make the victim more receptive to sexual activity with the offender. Appellant was convicted of several counts of lewdness with a minor and sexual assault of a minor. On appeal, Appellant challenged the admission of expert testimony on grooming behaviors and its effect on child victims of sexual abuse. The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of conviction, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the testimony of the expert witness in this case, as the testimony met the qualification, assistance, and limited scope requirements for admissibility and did not impermissibly bolster the victim's testimony.View "Perez v. State" on Justia Law

Appellant was charged with a felony for leaving the scene of an accident that resulted in bodily injury. At the close of the evidence at trial, Defendant requested that the jury be instructed that it could not find him guilty of leaving the scene of an accident unless it found Defendant had actual knowledge of the accident at the time it occurred. The trial court refused to give the requested instruction and instead instructed the jury that it could find Defendant guilty of the crime if it found Defendant knew or should have known he had been involved in an accident prior to leaving the scene of the accident. The jury returned a guilty verdict. The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of conviction entered by the district court, holding (1) the State is required to prove the driver had knowledge that he had been involved in an accident to convict him of felony leaving the scene of an accident that resulted in bodily injury, and such knowledge may be actual or constructive; and (2) sufficient evidence supported the jury's finding in this case that Appellant knew or should have known that he was involved in an accident before leaving the scene.View "Clancy v. State" on Justia Law

Appellant pleaded guilty to several felony offenses. Seven months after the judgment of conviction was entered, Appellant filed a motion to withdraw the guilty plea. The district court denied the motion on the merits. At issue before the Supreme Court was whether a defendant can file motion to withdraw a guilty plea to challenge a conviction or sentence after sentence has been opposed. The Court reversed and remanded for the district court to treat Appellant’s motion as a post-conviction petition for a writ of habeas corpus, holding (1) after sentence has been imposed, the statutory post-conviction habeas petition takes the place of a motion to withdraw a guilty plea; and (2) because Hart v. State holds otherwise, it is overruled. View "Harris v. State" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to multiple counts relating to fraudulent use of a credit card. Before sentencing, Petitioners (collectively, the surety) posted a bond for Defendant’s release. Defendant subsequently traveled to Mexico but was denied admission when he tried to return to the United States. Defendant missed his sentencing, and the district court sent a notice of intent to forfeit bond to the surety. The surety filed a motion to exonerate the bond, but the district court denied the motion. The surety then filed a petition for extraordinary relief from the district court’s order. The Supreme Court denied the petition, holding (1) Defendant was excluded, not deported, and therefore, Nev. Rev. Stat. 178.509 did not allow the district court to exonerate the surety’s bail bond; and (2) the surety was not entitled to exoneration based on common law contract defenses because there was no statutory ground for exoneration. View "All Star Bail Bonds, Inc. v. Dist. Court" on Justia Law

Appellant pleaded guilty to robbery. At sentencing, Appellant requested that the district court amend his presentence investigation report (PSI) to exclude information that he alleged was unsupported. After a hearing, the district court found that a portion of the PSI contained unsupported information. The court proceeded to amend Appellant’s PSI in the judgment of conviction rather than amending the PSI itself. Appellant appealed. The Supreme Court affirmed Appellant’s judgment of conviction, holding that the district court has the discretion to amend the PSI itself or to amend it in the judgment of conviction. View "Sasser v. State" on Justia Law