Justia Nevada Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court reversed Defendant's conviction of sex trafficking of a child under eighteen years of age, first-degree kidnapping, living from the earnings of a prostitute, and child abuse, neglect, or endangerment, holding that the trial court's Faretta canvass was in appropriate in this case.Defendant, who represented himself at trial, was found guilty of sex trafficking of a child under eighteen years of age, first-degree kidnapping, living from the earnings of a prostitute, and child abuse, neglect, or endangerment. The Supreme Court reversed Defendant's conviction on the basis that the waiver of his right to counsel was invalid, holding (1) the trial court's determination that Defendant validly waived his right to counsel was unreasonable in light of the inadequate inquiry into Defendant's understanding of the sentences he faced if convicted; and (2) the trial court should refrain from disparaging Defendant's choice to waive counsel. View "Miles v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction for the sexual assault of a woman who was killed twelve years before Defendant was charged, holding that there was no statutory time limit in which the State was required to file the sexual assault charge, and the district court did not err in denying Defendant's motion to dismiss.In 1998, two elderly victims were murdered in a retirement facility. In 2010, the State charged Defendant with murdering both victims and sexually assaulting the female victim. Defendant moved to dismiss the sexual assault charge, arguing that the State's prosecution was time-barred. The district court denied the motion, concluding that there was no limitations period for the offense under Nev. Rev. Stat. 171.083. Defendant was subsequently convicted of the murder of both victims and the sexual assault of the female victim. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the requirements of section 171.083 were satisfied, and therefore, there was no statutory time limit in which the State was required to file the sexual assault charge; and (2) the district court did not err in denying Defendant's motion to dismiss. View "Ramos v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court convicting Defendant of sexual assault, battery with the intent to commit sexual assault upon a victim age sixteen or older, and open or gross lewdness, holding that Defendant was not denied a fair and just sentencing hearing.At issue on appeal was whether Defendant's right to be present was violated when the sentencing hearing was conducted by simultaneous audiovisual transmission over the Zoom videoconferencing platform because of the district court's administrative orders forbidding in-person hearings due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Defendant's sentencing hearing was fair and just considering the surrounding circumstances; (2) the district court properly admitted evidence of Defendant's previous conviction for battery with intent to commit sexual assault; and (3) the district court did not err in limiting inquiry into Defendant's prior conviction that the court had determined would be admitted as evidence. View "Chaparro v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction, pursuant to a guilty plea, of two counts of driving under the influence resulting in death and one count of felony reckless driving but vacated his sentence, holding that the district court wrongly considered certain statements during sentencing.Under Nev. Const. art. I, 8A, also known as Marsy's Law, and Nev. Rev. Stat. 176.015 victims are afforded the right to be heard at sentencing. At issue was how to reconcile the provisions' different definitions of "victim." The Supreme Court held (1) neither definition includes anyone and everyone impacted by a crime, as the district court found in this case; (2) when presented with an objection to impact statements during sentences, a district court must first determine if an individual falls under either the constitutional definition or the statutory definition of "victim," and if the statement is from a nonvictim, the district court may consider it only upon a determination that the statement is relevant and reliable; and (3) the district court erroneously considered statements, over objection, from persons who do not fall under either definition of victim without making the required relevance and reliability findings. View "Aparicio v. State" on Justia Law

In this original petition for a writ of mandamus challenging the order of the district court denying Petitioner's motion to dismiss counts of an indictment, the Supreme Court held that the district court manifestly abused its discretion in denying Petitioner's motion to dismiss Douglas County charges for lack of venue.Petitioner was charged with committing three burglaries in two murders in Washoe County and two burglaries and two murders in Douglas County. A Washoe County grand jury indicted Petitioner for all of the above offenses. Petitioner filed a motion to dismiss the Douglas County charges for lack of territorial jurisdiction. The district court denied the motion, concluding that venue was proper in Washoe County for each charge. The Supreme Court granted Petitioner's petition for a writ of mandamus, holding that the State's theories supporting venue in Washoe County were too speculative and unsupported by the evidence to make venue proper for the Douglas County charges. View "Guzman v. District Court" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction of first-degree murder and related charges, holding that there was no reversible error in jury selection or closing arguments.During his trial, Defendant stipulated to a sentence of life without the possibility of parole if he was found guilty and to waive his right to appeal issues "stemming from the guilt phase of the trial." The jury found Defendant guilty, and the court sentenced Defendant to life without the possibility of parole. On appeal, Defendant raised errors relating to the denial of his pretrial motion to suppress evidence, jury selection, closing arguments, jury deliberations, and sentencing. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Defendant did not waive any error that occurred during closing arguments, sentencing or jury selection; and (2) Defendant waived his other alleged errors. View "Burns v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court denying Defendant's motion to suppress evidence recovered during a warrantless inventory search of his vehicle, holding that the plain-view exception to the warrant requirement of the United States and Nevada Constitutions applied in this case.Following a lawful stop and arrest of Defendant, a police officer performed a warrantless inventory search of Defendant's vehicle that produced no formal inventory. The officer, however, observed contraband during the search, leading to criminal charged being filed against Defendant. Defendant filed a motion to suppress, alleging that the evidence recovered from the vehicle was the product and fruit of an illegal search. The district court denied the motion, concluding that the evidence was validly discovered under the plain-view exception to the warrant requirement. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the plain-view exception to the warrant requirement applied because the officer was legally present in the vehicle at the time he observed the contraband. View "Jim v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court vacated the judgment of the district court denying Defendant's motion to withdraw his guilty plea, denying Defendant's subsequent motion to dismiss the charges against him, and entering a judgment of conviction based on Defendant's guilty plea, holding that the district court erred in denying Defendant's motion to withdraw his guilty plea.Defendant entered into a guilty plea agreement based on charges of robbery and ownership or possession of a firearm by a prohibited person and then suffered a mental breakdown. Defendant sought to withdraw his guilty plea when he regained competency, alleging a violation of his right to a speedy trial and that his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance. The district court denied Defendant's motions and convicted him. The Supreme Court vacated the judgment below, holding that withdrawal was just and fair, and therefore, the district court erred in denying Defendant's motion to withdraw his guilty plea. View "Sunseri v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court vacated Appellant's judgment of conviction, holding that Appellant was entitled to have seventy days' credit for time served applied to his sentence in his second case.Appellant pleaded guilty in two criminal cases and was sentenced on different dates by different judges, with each sentence imposed to run concurrently. The first sentencing judge applied credit for Appellant's time served to the sentence in the first case, but the second sentencing judge declined to apply credit for time served to the sentence in the second case. The Supreme Court vacated the judgment of conviction, holding (1) where a defendant simultaneously serves time in presentence confinement for multiple cases and the resulting sentences are imposed concurrently, credit for time served must be applied to each corresponding sentence; and (2) Appellant was entitled to credit for time served applied to the sentence in his second criminal case. View "White-Hughley v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the order of the district court denying Appellant's postconviction petition for a writ of habeas corpus, holding that Appellant overcame the procedural bars that applied to his postconviction habeas petition and that Appellant's sentence violated the Eighth Amendment.Appellant was convicted of first degree murder. Due to a single aggravating circumstance - a New York conviction for a felony invoking the use or threat of violence to another person - Appellant was sentenced to death. Later, a New York court vacated Appellant's New York conviction. Appellant subsequently filed his habeas petition, arguing that his death sentence constituted cruel and unusual punishment because the prior-violent-felony-conviction aggravating circumstance was invalid in light of the vacatur of his New York conviction. The district court denied the petition, concluding that it was procedurally barred and barred by statutory latches. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded the case, holding that the district court abused its discretion in dismissing Appellant's petition and that Appellant's sentence constituted cruel and unusual punishment. View "Howard v. State" on Justia Law