Justia Nevada Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

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

Pursuant to a plea agreement, Appellant pleaded guilty to murder, conspiracy to commit robbery, and conspiracy to commit first-degree kidnapping. Before he was sentenced, Appellant filed an objection to his Presentence Investigation Report (PSI), arguing that it contained inaccurate information regarding his gang involvement. The district court denied Appellant’s request for an evidentiary hearing in order to ensure that his sentence was based on accurate information. The court then sentenced Appellant to life imprisonment with the possibility of parole after twenty years for the murder conviction. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court properly determined that police department incident reports provided a factual basis for the gang information included in the PSI. View "Gomez v. State" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of conspiracy, kidnapping, and murder charges. Defendant appealed, arguing that the district court committed reversible error during the jury selection phase of trial. After the parties completed briefing on the matter, Defendant died. The district court appointed Defendant’s mother ("Mother") as his personal representative, and she substituted in as a party to the appeal. After the substitution, Mother filed a motion to abate Defendant’s judgment of conviction due to his death. The Supreme Court held (1) a criminal defendant is not entitled to have his judgment of conviction vacated and the prosecution abated when he dies while his appeal from the judgment is pending, but a personal representative may be substituted as the appellant and continue the appeal when justice so requires; and (2) in this case, Mother was entitled to continue Defendant’s appeal, and because of an error during jury selection, Defendant's conviction must be reversed. View "Brass v. State" on Justia Law

Appellant was charged by three indictments with multiple felony counts regarding crimes of a sexual nature against children. Appellant requested access to information about the racial composition of the three grand jury pools that indicted him. The district judge denied Appellant’s request. After a subsequent jury trial, Appellant was found guilty of several counts. Appellant appealed, contending that he had the right to challenge the grand jury selection under the Equal Protection or Due Process Clauses of the United States Constitution and that the district violated his constitutional rights by obstructing his ability to challenge the racial composition of the grand juries that indicted him. The Supreme Court held that Appellant was entitled to the information so that he may assess whether he had a viable constitutional challenge. Remanded. View "Afzali v. State" on Justia Law

Defendant was charged and convicted of sexual assault and incest for the rape of his daughter, with whom he fathered two children. Defendant appealed, arguing that because incest requires mutual consent and sexual assault is, by definition, nonconsensual, the two crimes were mutually exclusive. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) incest condemns sex between close relatives without regard to whether the intercourse was consensual; and (2) the jury instructions, which did not make mutual consent an element of incest, were not in error, and Defendant’s convictions for both incest and sexual assault did not violate double jeopardy. View "Douglas v. State" on Justia Law

Defendant was charged by information with aggravated stalking, a felony. Defendant filed a motion to suppress text messages retrieved from his cell phone as a result of his arrest, arguing that his Fourth Amendment rights were violated when law enforcement retrieved Defendant’s GPS coordinates from Defendant’s cell phone service provider in order to locate Defendant. The district court denied the motion. Following a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of aggravated stalking. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Defendant’s Fourth Amendment rights were not violated because law enforcement procured a valid arrest warrant before requesting Defendant’s phone’s GPS coordinates; and (2) the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Defendant’s request to withdraw from self-representation because his motion was made with an intent to delay the proceedings. View "Meisler v. State" on Justia Law