Month: November 2017

Can a witness give an opinion about a defendant’s guilt?

Posted on by Jeff Jaeger
Can a witness offer an opinion as to a defendant’s guilt?

Collins (Lesean) vs. State (Nev. Supreme Ct. – Nov. 22, 2017)

A jury convicted Collins of robbery and first-degree murder, for which he was sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole. On appeal, Collins argued, among other issues, that the testimony of the lead investigator in the case violated the rule against a witness giving an opinion on a defendant’s guilt.

Four days after Payton went missing, two ATV riders discovered her decomposed body in a ravine. Drag marks led through the dirt and brush to the body. No purse, wallet, cell phone, or means of identification or transportation were found. Payton’s shirt was pulled up over her head, and she was shoeless. Three of her acrylic fingernails had broken off – two were found at the scene – and one of her pockets was inside out. Some nearby rocks had blood on them.

Payton’s sister identified her body. Although identifiable, the body had decomposed too much for the coroner to definitively state the cause of death. The autopsy established that before she died, Payton sustained three blows to her head from a rod-like instrument. While the blows did not fracture Payton’s skull, they were strong enough to render her unconscious. The coroner deemed Payton’s death consistent with asphyxiation or being locked in the trunk of a car in southern Nevada’s late summer heat.

Continue reading “Can a witness give an opinion about a defendant’s guilt?” →

Nevada Appellate Courts Advance Opinions for November 22, 2017

Posted on by Jeff Jaeger

Nevada Appellate Courts Advance Opinions for November 22, 2017

BRADLEY VS. DIST. CT. (HUDSON)

  • Does NRS 49.209’s privilege between a psychologist and patient apply when a criminal defendant seeks records related to a patient who is court-ordered to partake in therapy.

NATIONSTAR MORTG., LLC VS. SATICOY BAY LLC SERIES 2227 SHADOW CANYON

  • Is commercial reasonableness a relevant inquiry in an HOA foreclosure sale of real property.

YU VS. YU

  • When can a post-judgment vexatious litigant determination be challenged on appeal.

GARDNER VS. DIST. CT. (HENDERSON WATER PARK, LLC)

  • Does the alter ego doctrine apply to limited liability companies.

COLLINS (LESEAN) VS. STATE

  • Were a defendant’s constitutional rights violated on the first day of trial when the district court barred him from the courtroom for disruptive conduct for a two-hour period, during which it excused individual jurors for hardship, statutory ineligibility, and language barrier reasons.
  • Can a witness offer an opinion as to a defendant’s guilt.
  • When is a defendant entitled to a jury instruction on a lesser-included offense of voluntary manslaughter.

Visit the Nevada Appellate Report for more legal news.

When must an employer train its employees on the use of protective equipment?

Posted on by Jeff Jaeger

When must an employer train its employees on the use of personal protective equipment (PPE)?

Sierra Pack’g v. Chief Ad. Off’r of NOSHA (Nev. Ct. App. – Nov. 16, 2017)

29 C.F.R. § 1910.132(f) requires employers to provide training regarding the use of personal protective equipment to employees exposed to hazards necessitating the use of such equipment. Sierra Packaging and Converting, LLC, argued the Nevada Occupational Safety and Health Administration improperly cited it for violating 29 C.F.R. § 1910.132(f), as no facts established that the subject employees were actually exposed to such a hazard in the course of their work or were required by that regulation to have fall protection training.

Nevada Occupational Safety and Health Administration (NOSHA) received an anonymous complaint alleging that Sierra Packaging and Converting, LLC (Sierra Packaging), violated NOSHA’s health and safety regulations by allowing employees to climb on warehouse racks without personal protection equipment (PPE). Pictures of three employees on the racking without PPE accompanied the complaint.

Continue reading “When must an employer train its employees on the use of protective equipment?” →

When can offenses be joined as a common plan or scheme?

Posted on by Jeff Jaeger

Joinder Common Plan or Scheme

Farmer (Steven) vs. State  (Nev. Supreme Ct. – Nov. 16, 2017

Farmer was charged with numerous sexual offenses based on accusations that he used his position as a certified nursing assistant (CNA) to take advantage of multiple patients in his care. The State of Nevada argued that Farmer should face five of his accusers in one trial and Farmer argued in favor of separate trials. After a hearing on the matter, the trial court granted the State’s motion to join the offenses under the theory that they were committed pursuant to a common scheme or plan according to NRS 173.115(2). In this appeal, Farmer argued that the Supreme Court of Nevada has construed the common scheme or plan language to permit joinder only where the defendant had an overarching plan, which involved committing each offense as an individual step toward a predetermined goal, and since his offenses were crimes of opportunity, the trial court erred by joining them.

Continue reading “When can offenses be joined as a common plan or scheme?” →

Nevada Appellate Courts Advance Opinions for November 16, 2017

Posted on by Jeff Jaeger

Nevada Appellate Courts Advance Opinions for November 16, 2017

IN RE: DISCIPLINE OF CHRISTOPHER READE

  • Does SCR 102 provide for the imposition of a fine when the State Bar Disciplinary Board recommends that an attorney be suspended or disbarred.

FARMER (STEVEN) VS. STATE

  • When can offenses be joined as being committed as parts of a common plan or scheme pursuant to NRS 173.115(2).

HARRIS V. STATE

  • Can counsel’s affirmative misrepresentation regarding filing a postconviction petition and subsequent abandonment of the petitioner be an impediment external to the defense to satisfy cause for the delay under NRS 34.726(1)(a) for filing an untimely petition.

KNICKMEYER V. STATE OF NEVADA

  • Do the provisions of NRS Chapter 289, which are intended to provide job-related protections to peace officers employed by law enforcement agencies, apply to bailiffs and marshals employed by the Eighth Judicial District Court.

SIERRA PACK’G V. CHIEF AD. OFF’R OF NOSHA

  • What standard must the Nevada Occupational Safety and Health Administration utilize to establish employee exposure to hazard.

CITY OF LAS VEGAS VS. DIST. CT. (KAMIDE (STEVEN))

  • Does NRS 50.155(1) impose a duty to limit out-of-court communications between witnesses about their testimony when the witness exclusion rule has been invoked.

Visit the Nevada Appellate Report for more legal news.

When is a defendant entitled to a jury instruction on a lesser included offense?

Posted on by Jeff Jaeger

Lesser Included Offenses

Alotaibi (Mazen) vs. State (Nev. Supreme Ct. – Nov. 9, 2017)

In this appeal, the Supreme Court of Nevada determined whether, under the statutory definitions existing in 2012, the offense of statutory sexual seduction is a lesser-included offense of sexual assault when that offense is committed against a minor under 14 years of age.

The statutes defining statutory sexual seduction and sexual assault were amended in 2015. Under the 2015 amendments, any sexual penetration of a minor under the age of 14 is sexual assault, and it is no longer possible for statutory sexual seduction to be committed against a minor under the age of 14. Therefore, the analysis of the statutory elements in this opinion pertains only to the version of the statutes in place at the time the offenses were committed in 2012.

On the morning of December 31, 2012, Alotaibi arrived at the Circus Circus hotel where his friends had a room. In the hallway outside the hotel room, Alotaibi encountered A.D., a 13- year-old boy who was staying at the hotel with his grandmother. A.D. asked Alotaibi for marijuana, and they went outside the hotel to smoke it. Alotaibi made sexual advances toward A.D. in the elevator and outside the hotel, despite A.D.’s resistance. Alotaibi then offered A.D. money and marijuana in exchange for sex. A.D. testified that he agreed, but intended to trick Alotaibi into giving him marijuana without engaging in any sexual acts.

Continue reading “When is a defendant entitled to a jury instruction on a lesser included offense?” →

Nevada Appellate Courts Advance Opinions for November 9, 2017

Posted on by Jeff Jaeger

Nevada Appellate Courts Advance Opinions for November 9, 2017

 ALOTAIBI (MAZEN) VS. STATE.

  • Is a statutory element that serves only to determine the appropriate sentence for an offense, but has no bearing as to guilt for the offense, an element of the offense for purposes of the lesser-included-offense analysis.

Visit the Nevada Appellate Report for more legal news.