Tag: 6th Amendment

Nevada Appellate Courts Advance Opinions for June 6, 2019

Posted on by Jeff Jaeger

Nevada Appellate Courts Advance Opinions for June 6, 2019

ROSE, LLC VS. TREASURE ISLAND, LLC

  • When a written lease is otherwise silent, is the allegedly defaulting party entitled to “strict” or merely “substantial” compliance with the notice requirements set forth in the lease for declaring the party in default.

THE ORIGINAL ROOFING CO., LLC VS. CHIEF ADMIN. OFFICER OF THE OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH ADMIN.

  • How must an employer’s knowledge of violative conduct of safety laws by a supervisor be established.

LIPSITZ (RYAN) VS. STATE

  • Does a witness’s testimony at trial via two-way audiovisual transmission violate a defendant’s right to confrontation.
  • Can a defendant be convicted of both sexual assault and attempted sexual assault based on the same conduct.

Visit the Nevada Appellate Report for more legal news.

Nevada Appellate Courts Advance Opinions for August 23, 2018

Posted on by Jeff Jaeger

Nevada Appellate Courts Advance Opinions for August 23, 2018

RICHARD (DVONTAE) VS. STATE

  • When should an out-of-court statement be excluded from the definition of hearsay as a prior inconsistent statement or as a prior identification.

MATHEWS (DONOVINE) VS. STATE

Visit the Nevada Appellate Report for more legal news.

Nevada Appellate Courts Advance Opinions for May 3, 2018

Posted on by Jeff Jaeger

Nevada Appellate Courts Advance Opinions for May 3, 2018

DOLORES VS. STATE, DEP’T OF EMPLOYMENT SEC. DIV.

  • Is submitting a resignation when faced with a resign-or-be-fired option a voluntary resignation under NRS 612.380, thereby disqualifying an individual from unemployment benefits.

LAS VEGAS DEV. GRP., LLC VS. BLAHA

  • Do the time limitations in NRS 107.080(5)-(6) (2010) bar an action challenging an NRS Chapter 107 nonjudicial foreclosure where it is alleged that the deed of trust had been extinguished before the sale.

COTTER, JR. VS. DIST. CT. (COTTER)

  • Do documents disclosed to third parties constitute waiver of the work-product privilege.

MEI-GSR HOLDINGS, LLC VS. PEPPERMILL CASINOS, INC.

  • Does NRS 600A.030, Nevada’s Uniform Trade Secrets Act (NTSA), preclude a defendant from demonstrating that certain information is readily ascertainable and not a trade secret even though the defendant acquired the information through improper means.

FITZGERALD VS. MOBILE BILLBOARDS, LLC

  • Were allegedly defamatory statements made by an employer regarding an employee’s alleged abuse of the workers’ compensation program to obtain prescription pain medication, a violation of NRS 616D.300, absolutely privileged.

IN RE: MATTER OF E.R. C/W 73198

  • Does a familial placement preference survive the termination of parental rights.

COLEMAN (SOLOMON) VS. STATE

  • Does NRS 200.604 prohibit a person from copying, without permission, a consensually recorded video depicting sexual acts.

MORGAN (JOHN) VS. STATE

Visit the Nevada Appellate Report for more legal news.

Does the 6th Amendment guarantee the right to cross-examine a witness?

Posted on by Jeff Jaeger

Attorney cross-examining a witness

State vs. Dist. Ct. (Baker (Jeffrey)) (Nev. Supreme Ct. – Mar. 1, 2018)

The issue is whether a defendant had an adequate opportunity to cross-examine a witness when, immediately after the State’s direct examination at the preliminary hearing, the defendant waived his right to continue the preliminary hearing.

Baker stood accused of one count of sexually motivated coercion and eight counts of lewdness with a child under the age of 14. At the preliminary hearing, Baker’s cousin, C.J., testified in detail regarding two instances in which Baker attempted to engage her in sexual activity. The first instance occurred when C.J. was 11 years old; the second when she was 13. Baker was well into his 20s on both occasions.

During the preliminary hearing, when C.J. finished testifying, the justice court said, “All right. Cross.” Instead of beginning cross-examination, Baker’s attorney asked for the court’s indulgence as he conferred off the record with the prosecutor. He then announced: “Today pursuant to negotiations, Mr. Baker will unconditionally waive his preliminary hearing. In district court he’ll plead guilty to one count of attempt[ed] lewdness with a minor.” After canvassing Baker, the justice court accepted his unconditional waiver of the remainder of the preliminary hearing.

Continue reading “Does the 6th Amendment guarantee the right to cross-examine a witness?” →

Nevada Appellate Courts Advance Opinions for March 1, 2018

Posted on by Jeff Jaeger

Nevada Appellate Courts Advance Opinions for March 1, 2018

STATE, DEP’T. OF BUS. AND INDUS., FIN. INST. DIV. VS. DOLLAR LOAN CTR., LLC

  • Can a payday loan licensee sue to collect on the recovery of a loan made for the purpose of refinancing prior loans under NRS 604A.480(2).

ZENOR VS. STATE, DEP’T OF TRANSP.

  • Are attorney fees prohibited under NRS 18.010(2)(b) in petitions for judicial review of an agency determination.

STATE VS. DIST. CT. (BAKER (JEFFREY))

  • Did a defendant have “an adequate opportunity” to cross-examine a witness when, immediately after the State’s direct examination at the preliminary hearing, the defendant waived his right to continue the preliminary hearing.

ANDREWS (RYAN) VS. STATE

  • Does the simultaneous possession of different schedule I controlled substances constitute separate offenses under NRS 453.3385 or must the weight of the controlled substances be aggregated to form a single offense.

PAWLIK VS. DENG

  • Does NRS 271.595, a statute governing redemption of property sold for default on city tax assessments, create two consecutive redemption periods.

K-KEL, INC. VS. STATE, DEP’T OF TAXATION

  • Did the court lack jurisdiction to consider petitions for judicial review of the Nevada Tax Commission regarding a tax refund request because they were untimely.

DEZZANI VS. KERN & ASSOC.’S, LTD. C/W 69410

  • Can an attorney be held liable for a claim under NRS 116.31183 as an agent of a common-interest community homeowners’ association.
  • Can attorneys litigating pro se and/or on behalf of their law firms recover attorney fees and costs.

JEREMIAS (RALPH) VS. STATE (DEATH PENALTY-DIRECT)

  • Did the district court violate the defendant’s right to a public trial by closing the courtroom to members of the public during jury selection without making sufficient findings to warrant the closure.

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?” →