Nevada Appellate Courts Advance Opinions for April 30, 2020

Nevada Appellate Courts Advance Opinions for April 30, 2020

Lewis v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct.

  • Is intervention permissible in a case after final judgment has been reached.
  • Is the consolidation of cases proper where one case has no pending issues.

State v. Second Jud. Dist. Ct. (Radonski)

  • Is arson a specific intent crime.

Newson v. State

  • Must the district court instruct the jury on voluntary manslaughter when requested by the defense if it is supported only by circumstantial evidence.

Visit the Nevada Appellate Report for more legal news.

Nevada Appellate Courts Advance Opinions for November 14, 2019

Nevada Appellate Courts Advance Opinions for November 14, 2019

Witter v. State

  • Is a judgment of conviction that has an indeterminate restitution provision a final judgment for purposes of an appeal or for the purposes of triggering the one-year deadline for filing a postconviction habeas petition.

Visit the Nevada Appellate Report for more legal news.

Nevada Appellate Courts Advance Opinions for December 20, 2018

Nevada Appellate Courts Advance Opinions for December 20, 2018

NATKO (HELEN) VS. STATE

  • Does a person’s status as a joint account holder by itself provide lawful authority to use or transfer another’s assets for their own benefit.

STATE VS. BROWN (TAREN)

  • What constitutes a “good cause showing” that the State must make under NRS 177.015 in order to file an interlocutory appeal from a district court order denying a motion to suppress evidence.

Visit the Nevada Appellate Report for more legal news.

Nevada Appellate Courts Advance Opinions for December 6, 2018

Nevada Appellate Courts Advance Opinions for December 6, 2018

STATE VS. DIST. CT. (HEARN (MATTHEW))

  • Is the prosecutorial veto within NRS 176A.290, which authorizes a district court to assign certain eligible defendants to a veterans court program, unconstitutional.

RODRIGUEZ (JUAN) VS. STATE

  • Is NRS 200.481(2)(b) an enhancement statute such that battery causing substantial bodily harm cannot be enhanced for committing a crime against a person 60 years of age or older under NRS 193.167.

STATE VS. DIST. CT. (OJEDA (FRANCISCO))

  • Does a district court have authority to order the State to disclose veniremember criminal history information it acquires from a government database that is unavailable to the defense.

LAKE TAHOE PROTECTION DIST. VS. BD. OF ADMIN.

  • Does NRS 616B.578 require an employer to prove that it had knowledge of a specific diagnosis of an employee’s preexisting condition to qualify for reimbursement on a worker’s compensation claim.

O’KEEFE VS. STATE, DEP’T OF MOTOR VEHICLES

  • What is the correct standard of review that a hearing officer must apply to a Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) disciplinary decision to terminate an employee.

Visit the Nevada Appellate Report for more legal news.

Nevada Appellate Courts Advance Opinions for September 27, 2018

Nevada Appellate Courts Advance Opinions for September 27, 2018

WARREN, JR. (JOSEPH) VS. DIST. CT. (STATE)

  • Does NRS 178.562(2) limit the State’s options after the justice court dismisses a criminal complaint that charges felony and/or gross misdemeanor offenses such that the State can only file a motion for leave to file an information by affidavit or obtain a grand jury indictment and cannot appeal the justice court’s decision to the district court.

HALL PRANGLE & SCHOONVELD, LLC VS. DIST. CT. (PETERSON) C/W 70083

  • Can a court use the collective knowledge doctrine to aggregate employees’ knowledge to impose discovery sanction orders.
  • Does a district court’s citation to the Rules of Professional Conduct in support of a determination of attorney misconduct cause reputational harm that amounts to a sanction.

DECHAMBEAU V. BALKENBUSH

  • What controls the duration and scope of a stipulation.

Visit the Nevada Appellate Report for more legal news.

Nevada Appellate Courts Advance Opinions for March 1, 2018

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.

Nevada Appellate Courts Advance Opinions for October 5, 2017

Nevada Appellate Courts Advance Opinions for October 5, 2017

MENDENHALL VS. TASSINARI

  • Are claims that are brought by the offering party in a second action, and arise out of facts that were discovered after serving the NRCP 68 offer, barred by general principles of claim preclusion or by the very terms of the NRCP 68 offer.

HUMPHRIES VS. NEW YORK-NEW YORK HOTEL & CASINO, LLC

  • When does an innkeeper owe a duty of care for on premises injuries caused by third parties because the wrongful act of a third party was foreseeable.

SWEAT (LONNIE) VS. DIST. CT. (STATE)

  • Does a defendant who pleads guilty to a lesser charge pursuant to a plea agreement and fails to comply with the terms of that agreement, waive his or her right to be protected from prosecution on a greater charge.

WILLIAMS (JESSICA) VS. STATE, DEP’T OF CORR.

  • Do credits earned pursuant to NRS 209.4465 apply to eligibility for parole as provided in NRS 209.4465(7)(b) where the offender was sentenced pursuant to a statute that requires a minimum term of not less than a set number of years, but does not mention parole eligibility.

FREDIANELLI VS. MARTINEZ

  • Can an attorney actively enforce a retaining lien.
  • Is an affirmative recovery necessary in the retaining lien context.
  • Can a retaining lien be reduced to a monetary judgment.

JOHNSON (DONTE) VS. STATE (DEATH PENALTY-PC)

  • Must a defendant file a postconviction petition within one year after remittitur issued on direct appeal from his original judgment of conviction where the direct appeal resulted in reversal and remand for another penalty hearing such that his sentences were unsettled.

IN RE: PARENTAL RIGHTS AS TO A.D.L. AND C.L.B., JR.

  • Are a parent’s Fifth Amendment rights violated when he or she is required to admit to a criminal act in order to maintain his or her parental rights.

Visit the Nevada Appellate Report for more legal news.

Can the State appeal an order granting a prejudgment motion for a new criminal trial?

State v. Harris (Nev. Supreme Ct. – July 30, 2015)

The issue is whether the Nevada Supreme Court has jurisdiction to review the State’s appeal from an order granting a prejudgment motion for a new trial in a criminal matter.

On October 2, 2013, a jury returned verdicts finding Harris guilty of first-degree murder, child abuse and neglect with the use of a deadly weapon, and two counts of child abuse and neglect. Prior to sentencing, Harris filed a timely motion for a new trial, which the district court granted. Pursuant to NRS 177.015(1)(b), the State appealed from the order granting the motion for a new trial. In State v. Lewis, 124 Nev. 132, 178 P.3d 146 (2008), the Nevada Supreme Court previously held that NRS 177.015(1)(b) only permits appeals from district court orders resolving post-conviction motions for a new trial. Therefore, the Nevada Supreme Court in this case ordered the State to show cause why the appeal should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The State argued that the Lewis holding was based on a rationale that has no application to its right to appeal in a criminal case. The State, therefore, requested the Court to revisit Lewis as it related to appeals from orders granting prejudgment motions for a new trial.

The plain language of NRS 17.015

NRS 177.015(1)(b) provides, in relevant part, that any aggrieved party, whether it is the State or the defendant, may appeal “from an order of the district court. . . granting or refusing a new trial.” Thus, the Court determined that the plain language of NRS 177.015(1)(b) clearly authorized an appeal from an order granting a motion for a new trial and did not limit the right to an appeal based on when the motion was filed or when the order resolving it was entered.

State v. Lewis and NRS 177.015(1)(b)

The Court explained that the Nevada Supreme Court has had a prior opportunity to consider the State’s right to appeal pursuant to NRS 177.015(1)(b) from a prejudgment order granting relief. The Lewis court held that the State did not have a statutory right to appeal from an order granting a presentence motion to withdraw a guilty plea. In reaching this decision, the Lewis court observed that Nevada Rule of Appellate Procedure NRAP 3A, which governs civil appeals, used language similar to the provision in NRS 177.015(1)(b) regarding an appeal from an order granting or refusing a new trial and that the language in NRAP 3A had been interpreted to only allow for an appeal from an order denying a post-judgment motion for a new trial. Noting these similarities and that the Nevada Supreme Court had treated a motion to withdraw a guilty plea as tantamount to a motion for a new trial, the Lewis court stated that it saw no reason to construe the same language in NRS 177.015(1)(b) in an inconsistent manner.

Continue reading “Can the State appeal an order granting a prejudgment motion for a new criminal trial?”