Justia Nevada Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Ramel Ortiz was convicted of six counts of sexual assault and other felonies after breaking into M.P.'s house and forcing her to engage in multiple sexual acts. Four of these sexual assault counts arose from an incident during which Ortiz subjected M.P. to intercourse in different sexual positions. Ortiz appealed his conviction, arguing that his appellate counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to challenge the sufficiency of the evidence to support multiple sexual assault convictions.Ortiz's case was first reviewed by the Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County, which denied his postconviction petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Ortiz then appealed to the Supreme Court of the State of Nevada.The Supreme Court of the State of Nevada found that appellate counsel's omission of a sufficiency challenge to the multiple convictions fell below an objective standard of reasonableness. The court concluded that because the sufficiency challenge stood a reasonable probability of success had it been raised on appeal from the judgment of conviction, Ortiz was prejudiced by appellate counsel's omission of that challenge. The court therefore reversed in part and remanded for the district court to vacate three of Ortiz's sexual assault convictions. However, the court affirmed the district court's decision as to Ortiz's remaining claims, which it found to lack merit. View "Ortiz v. State" on Justia Law

In 2016, 21-year-old Kwame De-Markquise Morrison initiated a sexual relationship with a 12-year-old girl, A.M. In 2017, A.M. became pregnant and gave birth to a child, who was later adopted. Morrison was charged with six counts of sexual assault upon a minor under 14 years of age and one count of use of a minor under the age of 14 in producing pornography. Morrison admitted to having sex with A.M. but claimed he believed she was 16 years old.The district court convicted Morrison of three counts of sexual assault upon a minor under 14 years of age and one count of use of a minor under the age of 14 in producing pornography. The court instructed the jury that a lack of knowledge or a mistake as to the victim's age is not a defense to a charge of using a minor in producing pornography. Morrison appealed, arguing that the instruction was inaccurate because the State is required to prove that the defendant "knowingly" used "a minor" in producing pornography.The Court of Appeals of Nevada agreed that the instruction was inaccurate. However, it found that the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt because Morrison admitted that he believed A.M. was 16 years old—and therefore a minor—during their sexual relationship. The court also rejected Morrison's other claims on appeal, including that the district court abused its discretion by denying his motion to dismiss counsel and that the State committed prosecutorial misconduct. Therefore, the court affirmed Morrison's judgment of conviction. View "Morrison v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court of Nevada addressed whether the provision under NRS 62C.200(1)(b) violates the separation of powers doctrine. This provision requires the district attorney's written approval before a juvenile court may dismiss a delinquency petition and refer a juvenile to informal supervision. The appellant, a juvenile referred to as I.S., was adjudicated a delinquent and placed on formal probation. I.S. appealed, arguing that the provision infringed upon the court's sentencing discretion, essentially granting an unconstitutional prosecutorial veto.The court concluded that I.S.'s appeal was not moot, despite the completion of his juvenile supervision, due to the presumption of collateral consequences of such an adjudication until the juvenile reaches age 18 and/or their juvenile record is sealed.On the main issue, the court held that the requirement under NRS 62C.200(1)(b) does not contravene the separation of powers doctrine. The court reasoned that this provision does not involve a sentencing decision. Rather, the court perceived it as akin to a charging decision, which is within the executive realm. The court further noted that, unlike adult courts, the juvenile court's authority is not derived from the constitution but is limited to the authority expressly prescribed to it by statute. Therefore, the court affirmed the district court's order, holding that the requirement for the district attorney's written approval before a juvenile court can dismiss a petition does not violate the separation of powers doctrine. View "In re I.S." on Justia Law

In this case, the Supreme Court of the State of Nevada dealt with the issue of the scope of a valid search warrant and its implications under the Fourth Amendment. The appellant, Deva One Smith, was convicted of two counts of possession of a visual presentation depicting sexual conduct of a person under sixteen years of age. The case centered on the validity of a search warrant that officers used to seize and conduct a forensic search of Smith's cell phone.The court clarified that under Nevada law, an affidavit may be incorporated into a warrant to establish probable cause, but that affidavit cannot expand the scope of the search and seizure permitted under the warrant's specific language. Officers must search only the places authorized on the face of the warrant. In Smith's case, the officers had a valid warrant for his residence only; however, they seized his cell phone while he was outside his residence.The court found that the imminent destruction of evidence exigency justified the seizure of the cell phone. However, no other exigent circumstance allowed for the subsequent forensic search of the cell phone. The court concluded that because officers failed to obtain a warrant to search the cell phone, the search of that device violated Smith's Fourth Amendment rights. Therefore, the district court erred in denying Smith's motion to suppress the evidence found on the phone. As a result, the Supreme Court of the State of Nevada reversed the judgment of conviction. View "Smith v. State" on Justia Law

The case involves Christopher Kabew, who pleaded guilty to attempted residential burglary, his first felony conviction. His sentence was suspended and he was placed on probation with the condition that he complete a substance abuse treatment program. After successfully completing the program, Kabew petitioned the district court to set aside his conviction under NRS 176A.240(6)(a), which states that upon completing the terms and conditions of a drug court program, a court "shall discharge the defendant and dismiss the proceedings or set aside the judgment of conviction" unless the defendant has a prior felony conviction or previously failed to complete a specialty court program. The district court denied the motion, and Kabew petitioned the Supreme Court of Nevada.The Supreme Court of Nevada found that the district court improperly denied Kabew's motion. The court held that NRS 176A.240(6)(a) is mandatory and does not afford district courts any discretion to deny a motion to set aside a judgment of conviction when the defendant meets the statutory requirements. The court further held that the statute does not intrude on judicial functions, as it is within the legislature's power to define crimes and determine punishments. The court concluded that the district court failed to perform a duty required by law by denying Kabew's motion, and ordered the district court to set aside Kabew's conviction. View "Kabew v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct." on Justia Law

In a case tried in the Court of Appeals of the State of Nevada, the appellant, Kim A. Judd, was charged with one count of felony injuring or tampering with a motor vehicle and one count of felony coercion. This came after an altercation where Judd struck a 1957 Chevrolet truck several times with a sledgehammer following a disagreement with the owner of the vehicle, Scott Reber, over payment for repairs.The key issue addressed by the court was the interpretation of the phrase "physical force" in NRS 207.190(2), which distinguishes between coercion being punished as a felony versus as a misdemeanor. The court needed to determine whether "physical force" should be limited to physical force against a person, and not merely against property.The court concluded that the Nevada Legislature intended for the distinguishing statutory element of "physical force" to be limited to force against a person. As such, the jury should have been instructed accordingly. The court emphasized the importance of giving proper jury instructions for the essential elements of a crime and ruled that the failure to properly instruct the jury on the definition of physical force as being limited to force against a person necessitated the reversal of this conviction.However, the court affirmed the felony conviction for injuring or tampering with a motor vehicle, concluding that the jury was correctly instructed on the proper measure of damages for the partial destruction of property. The conviction for injuring or tampering with a motor vehicle was based on the uncontroverted expert testimony at trial, which provided a replacement cost for the damaged parts of the vehicle. View "Judd v. State" on Justia Law

The appellant, Demitri Gee, was convicted for driving under the influence resulting in substantial bodily harm. He appealed the judgment of conviction, challenging the restitution amount of $9,940 that was awarded to the State of Nevada Victims of Crime Program. On appeal, the Supreme Court of the State of Nevada found two main issues: whether an order of restitution must be based on competent evidence and whether a defendant’s restitution obligation should be offset by the amount the defendant’s insurance provider paid to the victim for the same losses.Gee had been driving while intoxicated when he lost control of his vehicle and collided with another car, severely injuring the occupants. He subsequently fled the scene. As a result of the collision, Gee was charged with two counts of driving under the influence resulting in substantial bodily harm among other charges. A civil settlement agreement was reached with the victims, and they received compensation through Gee's insurance.The court found that the restitution amount of $9,940 was not supported by competent evidence as the state failed to present evidence to support it. The court also found that the district court had not evaluated whether the restitution should be offset by the insurance payment made by Gee to the victims. Therefore, the Supreme Court of Nevada concluded that the district court had abused its discretion by ordering restitution not supported by competent evidence and by failing to evaluate whether the award needed to be offset by the compensation provided to the victim through Gee’s insurance. The court then vacated the $9,940 in restitution, affirmed the rest of the conviction, and remanded the case for further proceedings regarding the restitution amount. View "Gee v. State" on Justia Law

In a divorce case, the Supreme Court of Nevada was asked to consider whether a law firm, established by one spouse before the marriage and incorporated under a different name during the marriage, constitutes that spouse’s separate property. Robert Draskovich, a practicing criminal lawyer since 1997, married Laurinda Draskovich in 2012, at which point he had a 65% ownership stake in a firm. In 2018, that firm dissolved, and Robert incorporated the Draskovich Law Group (DLG) as his wholly owned corporation.During their divorce proceedings in 2022, DLG was the primary asset in dispute. The district court concluded that DLG was community property, based on the fact that DLG was incorporated during the marriage. The district court also rejected Laurinda’s request for alimony, in part because it determined that the share of community assets distributed to Laurinda would provide sufficient support through passive income.Upon appeal, the Supreme Court of Nevada held that the district court erred in determining that the law firm was entirely community property. The court found that the law firm was a continuation of the spouse’s original, separate property law practice, and thus, the presumption of community property does not properly apply. Therefore, the Court reversed the portion of the divorce decree pertaining to the DLG interests and remanded for further proceedings. The Court also vacated the district court’s alimony determination to be reconsidered in light of the changed circumstances surrounding DLG. View "Draskovich v. Draskovich" on Justia Law

In this case, the Supreme Court of the State of Nevada ruled on the constitutionality of assigning senior justices to temporarily serve on the Supreme Court in the event of a disqualified justice. The appellant, Valley Health System, LLC, argued that only the governor has the authority to replace a disqualified justice based on Article 6, Section 4(2) of the Nevada Constitution. However, the court disagreed, noting that Article 6, Section 19(1) authorizes the chief justice to recall any consenting retired state court justice or judge not removed or retired for cause or defeated for retention of office, and assign them to appropriate temporary duty within the court system.The court thus concluded that the Nevada Constitution authorizes both the governor's designation of lower court judges and the chief justice's temporary assignment of senior justices to replace disqualified justices. Therefore, the chief justice's assignment of senior justices to the case was constitutionally authorized, and the appellant's objection was overruled and its motion to designate lower court judges was denied. The court noted that this dual-method system is not completely unique and is also present in other states such as Tennessee. View "Valley Health Sys., LLC v. Murray" on Justia Law

In this case, the Supreme Court of Nevada was tasked with determining whether a government entity, in this case Clark County, qualifies as a "person" under Nevada's anti-SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) statute. This arose from a dispute where a property owner, 6635 W Oquendo LLC, claimed Clark County lacked the authority to impose civil penalties and to record liens against its property. Clark County, in response, filed an anti-SLAPP motion arguing that the actions forming the basis of Oquendo's claims were protected speech under the anti-SLAPP statute. The district court ruled in favor of Oquendo, stating that Clark County was not a "person" for the purposes of the anti-SLAPP statute.The Supreme Court of Nevada affirmed this decision, concluding that a government entity is not a "person" under the anti-SLAPP statute. The court rejected Clark County's arguments, stating that the statutory definition of "person" in Nevada law does not include a government, governmental agency or political subdivision of a government. The court also clarified that an earlier decision, John v. Douglas County School District, did not establish that a governmental entity is a "person" for the purpose of anti-SLAPP protections. The court concluded that Clark County was not entitled to file an anti-SLAPP motion, affirming the lower court's decision. View "Clark County v. 6635 W Oquenda LLC" on Justia Law