Justia Nevada Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The special administrator of Decedent's estate petitioned to have Decedent's estate set aside without administration according to Decedent's 2007 will. Decedent's stepdaughters opposed the petition, arguing that a beneficiary of the will had unduly influenced Decedent. The district court invalidated the will as the product of the beneficiary's undue influence. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) in the absence of a presumption of undue influence, a will contestant bears the burden of proving undue influence by a preponderance of the evidence; and (2) Decedent's stepdaughters failed to meet this burden of proof, and accordingly, the district court's order was not supported by substantial evidence. Remanded.View "In re Estate of Bethurem" 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

In 2007, Sandpointe Apartments obtained a loan secured by a deed of trust to real property. Stacy Yahraus-Lewis personally guaranteed the loan. After Sandpointe defaulted on the loan, the interest in the loan and guarantee was transferred to CML-NV Sandpointe, LLC. In 2011, CML-NV pursued its rights under the deed of trust's power of sale provision and purchased the property securing the loan at a trustee's sale. Thereafter, the Legislature enacted Nev. Rev. Stat. 40.459(1)(c), which limits the amount of a deficiency judgment that can be recovered by persons who acquired the right to obtain the judgment from someone else who held that right. Subsequently, CML-NV filed a complaint against Sandpointe and Yahraus-Lewis for deficiency and breach of guaranty. Yahraus-Lewis moved for partial summary judgment, requesting that the district court apply the limitation contained in section 40.459(1)(c) to CML-NV's action. The district court concluded that the statute applies only to loans entered into after June 10, 2011. Sandpointe and Yahraus-Lewis subsequently petitioned for a writ of mandamus or prohibition. The Supreme Court denied the writ, concluding that the statute may not apply retroactively, and therefore, the statute's limitations did not apply in this case.View "Sandpointe Apartments, LLC v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court" on Justia Law

Respondent, Reno Newspapers Inc., submitted a public records request to Appellant, Public Employees' Retirement System of Nevada (PERS), seeking information stored in the individual files of retired employees. PERS denied Respondent's request, asserting that the information was confidential pursuant to Nev. Rev. Stat. 286.110(3), which provides that the files of individual retired employees are not public records. Respondent filed a petition for a writ of mandamus seeking the requested information. The district court granted the petition, concluding that the requested information was not confidential and that privacy concerns did not clearly outweigh the public's right to disclosure. The Supreme Court (1) affirmed in part, holding that the district court did not err in ordering PERS to provide the requested information to the extent it was maintained in a medium separate from individuals' files, as other reports generated by PERS were not protected by section 286.110(3); but (2) vacated the district court's order to the extent the court ordered PERS to create new documents or customized reports by searching for and compiling information from individuals' files, as the individual files had been declared confidential by statute and were thereby exempt from requests pursuant to the Act.View "Pub. Employees' Ret. Sys. of Nev. v. Reno Newspapers, Inc." on Justia Law

Palms Casino Resort allowed promotional actors to toss souvenirs into a crowd of patrons watching televised sporting events at the casino’s sports bar. Respondent was injured when another patron dove for a souvenir during a broadcast of Monday Night Football at the casino. Respondent sued Palms on a theory of negligence. After a trial, the district court determined that Palms was liable as a matter of law and awarded Respondent $6,051,589 in damages. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded for a new trial, holding that the district court abused its discretion in excluding testimony of an expert on security and crowd control, and the error was not harmless. View "FCH1, LLC v. Rodriguez" 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

Raymond Yeghiazarian died from injuries after colliding with Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department (LVMPD) Officer Jared Wicks. Raymond's wife and her son and two daughters (collectively, the Yeghiazarian family) filed a complaint against LVMPD and Officer Wicks, alleging negligence resulting in Raymond's death. After a trial, the jury found Officer Wicks was seventy-five percent negligent and Raymond was twenty-five percent negligent. The district court subsequently issued a judgment against LVMPD for $250,000 and awarded the Yeghiazarian family attorney fees and costs. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court (1) did not abuse its discretion by excluding evidence of Raymond's alcohol consumption prior to the accident; (2) did not abuse its discretion in permitting the Yeghiazarian family's expert to testify; (3) correctly calculated damages; and (4) did not abuse its discretion in awarding attorney fees. View "Las Vegas Metro. Police Dep't v. Yeghiazarian" on Justia Law