Justia Nevada Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

After a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty of battery with intent to commit a crime. Defendant appealed, arguing that the district court erred when it failed to give his proffered instruction on battery as a lesser-included offense of battery with intent to commit a crime. The Supreme Court agreed and reversed Defendant’s judgment of conviction, holding (1) Defendant was entitled to an instruction on battery as a lesser-included offense of battery with intent to commit a crime, and the district court erroneously declined to give such an instruction; and (2) the error was not harmless. Remanded for a new trial. View "Manning v. State" on Justia Law

After a trial, Defendant was found guilty of vehicular manslaughter in violation of Nev. Rev. Stat. 484B.657(1). Defendant appealed, arguing that certain phrases in the statute rendered section 484B.657(1) void for vagueness. The district court upheld Defendant’s conviction without addressing Defendant’s arguments concerning the vagueness of the phrases at issue. Defendant subsequently filed a petition for a writ of certiorari challenging the constitutionality of section 484B.657(1). The Supreme Court granted the petition, holding (1) section 484B.657(1) is not unconstitutionally void for vagueness and does not violate due process; but (2) the district court erred in upholding the constitutionality of the statute without interpreting the challenged phrases. View "Cornella v. Justice Court" on Justia Law

After a bench trial, the justice court convicted Jennifer Schneider of misdemeanor driving under the influence. The district court reversed Schneider’s conviction and sentence and remanded the matter for a new trial, concluding that the justice court’s comments at sentencing showed bias that undermined Schneider’s sentence and her right to a fair trial. The State filed an original writ petition challenging the district court’s decision. The Supreme Court granted the petition in part, holding (1) the district court did not err when it found the justice court’s comments at sentencing indicated a bias against Schneider; but (2) because there was no showing that the bias toward Schneider at sentencing interfered with her right to a fair trial, the district court erred in fashioning a remedy without accounting for the state of the evidence of Schneider’s guilt. View "State v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Appellant was convicted of first-degree kidnapping with substantial bodily harm and possession of a controlled substance. Appellant appealed, arguing that Nevada lacked territorial jurisdiction to prosecute him for first-degree kidnapping with substantial bodily harm because the offenses originated in Illinois. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Nevada had territorial jurisdiction over both the kidnapping charge and the substantial bodily harm enhancement because, while the kidnapping began in Illinois, it continued in Nevada, where Appellant restricted the victim from seeking medical treatment, causing the victim prolonged physical pain; (2) the State gave proper notice of grand jury proceedings; and (3) the district court’s mistake in failing to include second-degree kidnapping on the verdict form was not reversible error. View "McNamara v. State" on Justia Law

Appellant was found guilty of assault with a deadly weapon. While he was still imprisoned, Appellant filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel and appeal deprivation. The district court granted the petition in part, concluding that Appellant was wrongfully deprived of an appeal. The court did not address Appellant’s other claims. Appellant then appealed from the judgment of conviction. The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. After Appellant was released from physical custody, he filed a supplement to his petition for writ of habeas corpus, again alleging ineffective assistance of counsel. The district court dismissed the petition as moot because Appellant was no longer in custody, on probation, or on parole. The Supreme Court reversed, (1) a habeas petition challenging the validity of a judgment of conviction filed while the petitioner is imprisoned or under supervision as a probationer or parolee does not become moot when the petitioner is released if there are continuing collateral consequences stemming from that conviction; (2) a criminal conviction creates a presumption that collateral consequences exist; and (3) therefore, the district court erred in summarily dismissing the petition in this case as moot. View "Martinez-Hernandez v. State" on Justia Law

Tower Homes, LLC retained William Heaton and his law firm (collectively, Heaton) for legal guidance in developing a residential common ownership project. The project eventually failed, and Tower Homes entered Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection. The plan of reorganization and confirmation order stated that the trustee and bankruptcy estate retained all legal claims. The trustee subsequently entered into a stipulation with a group of creditors (collectively, the Creditors) permitting the Creditors to pursue any legal malpractice claims in the Tower Homes’ name. The bankruptcy court then entered an order authorizing the trustee to permit the Creditors to pursue Tower Homes’ legal malpractice claim in Tower Homes’ name. The Creditors subsequently filed a legal malpractice lawsuit against Heaton, naming Tower Homes as plaintiff. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Heaton, concluding that the stipulation and order constituted an impermissible assignment of a legal malpractice claim to the Creditors. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the stipulation and order constituted an assignment, which is prohibited under Nevada law; and (2) the Creditors may bring a debtor’s legal malpractice claim pursuant to 11 U.S.C. 1123(b)(3)(B) when certain conditions are met, but those conditions were not met in this case. View "Tower Homes, LLC v. Heaton" on Justia Law

Mother and Father divorced while living in Nevada with their minor child. Mother eventually obtained sole custody and moved to England. Father, in the meantime, moved to Turkey. Father subsequently filed a motion to modify child custody and support. Mother filed a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. The district court denied Father’s motion to modify child custody and granted Mother’s motion to dismiss, concluding that it lost jurisdiction to modify its decree when the parents and the child moved away from Nevada. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) while the district court lost exclusive, continuing jurisdiction over custody, the court should have considered Father’s argument that, under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act, the court retained jurisdiction to ensure that another, more appropriate, forum existed to resolve the dispute; and (2) because the district court failed to exercise this jurisdiction, the cause is remanded for further proceedings. View "Kar v. Kar" on Justia Law

When Respondent defaulted on a commercial guaranty agreement with Bank, Bank sued Respondent. Bank’s complaint sought from Respondent the deficiency allowed by Nev. Rev. Stat. 40.495(4). On June 18, 2013 Bank proceeded to foreclosure sale. Bank acquired the property at foreclosure. On January 16, 2014, Bank filed a motion for summary judgment, seeking a deficiency judgment against Respondent. Respondent filed a cross-motion for summary judgment, arguing that because Bank let more than six months elapse between the date of the foreclosure sale and the date it filed its motion for summary judgment, Bank forfeited its right to obtain a deficiency judgment by operation of Nev. Rev. Stat. 40.455. Bank responded that its pre-foreclosure complaint satisfied all applicable requirements in Nev. Rev. Stat. Chapter 40. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Respondent and against Bank. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that Bank’s complaint against Respondent for the deficiency allowed by section 40.495(4) satisfied the requirements of Chapter 40. View "Bank of Nevada v. Petersen" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Appellant was convicted of, among other offenses, murder with the use of a deadly weapon and ten counts of discharging a firearm at or into a structure. On appeal, Appellant’s argued, inter alia, that double jeopardy precludes multiple convictions for discharging a firearm are impermissible based on multiple discharges that occurred in quick succession. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the word “discharges,” as used in Nev. Rev. Stat. 202.285(1) unambiguously allows for a separate conviction each time a bullet leaves the gun, and therefore, Appellant’s ten convictions for discharging a firearm were not redundant; (2) sufficient evidence supported Defendant’s convictions for first-degree murder, attempted murder, conspiracy to commit murder, and discharging a firearm into an occupied structure; and (3) the criminal information was not defective because it did not name the identity of a coconspirator. View "Washington v. State" on Justia Law

Appellants filed an inverse condemnation complaint against Washoe County alleging that the County approved subdivision maps, directed the flow of water, and accepted street dedications during the building process of two upstream developments that increased the flow of water to Whites Creek and caused flooding to Appellants’ property. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Washoe County, concluding that the County’s approval of subdivision maps and acceptance of dedications did not constitute substantial involvement sufficient to support a claim for inverse condemnation. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that genuine issues of material fact existed as to whether the County’s action constituted substantial involvement in the drainage system sufficient to support a claim for inverse condemnation. View "Fritz v. Washoe County" on Justia Law