Tag: Confrontation Clause

Nevada Appellate Courts Advance Opinions for October 1, 2020

Posted on by Jeff Jaeger

Nevada Appellate Courts Advance Opinions for October 1, 2020

COTTER, JR. VS. KANE

  • Can a corporate nominal defendant in a derivative action challenge or defend the underlying merits of that action.
  • What must a court consider when determining whether a shareholder plaintiff adequately represents shareholders and thus has standing to bring a derivative action.

 TURNER (STEVEN) VS. STATE 

  • Does a defendant waive or forfeit a Bruton argument where the defendant moves to sever the trial on Bruton grounds but thereafter cooperates to redact the statements and neither objects to the statements at trial nor renews the Bruton argument before the admission of the statements to the jury.

 HARVEY (ALFRED) VS. STATE

  • Does NRS 175.101 preclude a judge other than the trial judge from deciding post-trial motions where there is no evidence that the trial judge is absent, deceased, sick, or disabled.

GONZALES (MELVIN) VS. STATE

  • What types of ineffective-assistance claims are permitted by NRS 34.810(1)(a).

Visit the Nevada Appellate Report for more legal news.

Nevada Appellate Courts Advance Opinions for November 27, 2019

Posted on by Jeff Jaeger

Nevada Appellate Courts Advance Opinions for November 27, 2019

Poasa v. State

  • When a district court imposes a sentence in a criminal case, must it give a defendant credit for any of the time the defendant has actually spent in presentence confinement.

Anderson v. State

  • What is the appropriate burden of proof for purposes of the forfeiture-by-wrongdoing exception to the Sixth Amendment’s Confrontation Clause.

Visit the Nevada Appellate Report for more legal news.

Nevada Appellate Courts Advance Opinions for September 5, 2019

Posted on by Jeff Jaeger

Nevada Appellate Courts Advance Opinions for September 5, 2019

Spar Bus. Servs., Inc. v. Olson

  • Is the untimely service of a timely filed petition for judicial review of an administrative decision a jurisdictional defect mandating dismissal.

Poole v. Nev. Auto Dealership Invs.

  • What is the meaning of “knowingly” and “material fact” under the Nevada Deceptive Trade Practices Act (NDTPA).

MMAWC, LLC v. Zion Wood Obi Wan Tr.

  • Does the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) preempt NRS 597.995, which requires agreements that include an arbitration provision to also include a specific authorization for the arbitration provision showing that the parties affirmatively agreed to that provision.

Anderson v. State

  • What is the State’s burden of proof when invoking the forfeiture-by-wrongdoing exception to the Confrontation Clause.

Azucena v. State

  • What is the standard of review for preserved claims of judicial misconduct during voir dire.

DeMaranville v. Cannon Cochran Mgmt.

  • Did substantial evidence support an appeal officers finding that a retired city police officer’s death was caused by heart disease and was compensable as an occupational disease under NRS 617.457.

Visit the Nevada Appellate Report for more legal news.

Does witness testimony at trial via two-way audiovisual violate a defendant’s right to confrontation?

Posted on by Jeff Jaeger

Picture of a person wiith a TV head

Lipsitz (Ryan) vs. State (Nev. Supreme Ct. – June 6, 2019)

Lipsitz was convicted of seven sexually related counts, including sexual assault and attempted sexual assault. He argued that the district court erred when it allowed the victim to testify by two-way audiovisual transmission, which violated his rights under the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment.

Lipsitz trespassed into a residential treatment facility, where he sexually assaulted the victim, an 18-year-old patient seeking treatment for substance abuse and trauma related to her experience as a victim of sex trafficking. On the morning in question, the victim fell asleep while reading in the recreation room around 4 a.m. Approximately one hour later, the victim awoke to find Lipsitz, whom she had never seen before, standing at the end of the couch. Lipsitz exposed himself and forced the victim to have sex with him. Lipsitz then attempted to force the victim to perform fellatio on him. When he failed, he became upset, mumbled something under his breath, and walked away. Another patient and several staff members at the treatment center saw Lipsitz exiting the treatment center through the front gate. He was nearby the center when police officers found him.

Continue reading “Does witness testimony at trial via two-way audiovisual violate a defendant’s right to confrontation?” →

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.

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?” →