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

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

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.

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

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

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.