Tag: Nev. Const. art. 1 § 3

Does a defendant have the right to a jury trial on a charge of misdemeanor battery constituting domestic violence?

Posted on by Jeff Jaeger

Picture of a jury

Andersen v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct. (Nev. Supreme Ct. – Sept. 12, 2019)

At issue is since Nevada limits the right to bear arms for a person who has been convicted of misdemeanor battery constituting domestic violence, is the classification of the offense serious thereby requiring a jury trial.

Andersen was arrested and charged with first-offense battery constituting domestic violence (domestic battery), a misdemeanor pursuant to NRS 200.485(1)(a), and simple battery. Before the municipal court, Andersen made a demand for a jury trial, arguing that a conviction for domestic battery was a serious offense and thus compelled a jury trial. After the municipal court denied the demand for a jury trial, Andersen entered a no contest plea to the domestic battery charge, and the charge of simple battery was dismissed.

On appeal to the district court, Andersen’s sole contention was that he was erroneously denied the right to a jury trial. The district court disagreed and affirmed the conviction. Andersen then filed a writ petition.

Continue reading “Does a defendant have the right to a jury trial on a charge of misdemeanor battery constituting domestic violence?” →

Nevada Appellate Courts Advance Opinions for September 12, 2019

Posted on by Jeff Jaeger

Nevada Appellate Courts Advance Opinions for September 12, 2019

Andersen v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct.

  • Is the offense of misdemeanor battery constituting domestic violence a serious offense such that the right to a jury trial is triggered.

State Eng’r v. Happy Creek, Inc.

  • Do Nevada courts have authority to grant equitable relief in water law cases beyond the relief, if any, that the water law statutes allow the State engineer to grant.

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.