Tag: NRS 200.485

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 December 13, 2018

Posted on by Jeff Jaeger

Nevada Appellate Courts Advance Opinions for December 13, 2018

FLORES VS. LAS VEGAS-CLARK CTY. LIBRARY DIST.

  • Does Senate Bill 175, which declares that the regulation of firearms in Nevada is within the exclusive domain of the Legislature, and any other law, regulation, rule or ordinance to the contrary is null and void, preempt a library district from banning the possession of firearms on its premises.

CENTURY SURETY CO. VS. ANDREW (NRAP 5)

  • Is the liability of an insurer that has breached its duty to defend, but has not acted in bad faith, capped at the policy limit plus any costs incurred by the insured in mounting a defense, or is the insurer liable for all losses consequential to the insurer’s breach.

BRANHAM (WILLIAM) VS. WARDEN

  • Do the United States Supreme Court decisions in Welch v. United States, 578 U.S. ___, 136 S. Ct. 1257 (2016), and Montgomery v. Louisiana, 577 U.S ___, 36 S. Ct. 718 (2016), constitute good cause to overcome the procedural bars to a postconviction petition for a writ of habeas corpus in which the petitioner contends he is entitled to the retroactive application of a nonconstitutional substantive rule.

DOOLIN (GLENN) VS. STATE, DEPT. OF CORR.

  • Can an offender have statutory credit earned pursuant to NRS 209.4465 applied to the offender’s parole eligibility and minimum term of sentence imposed pursuant to NRS 207.010.

IN RE: EXECUTION SEARCH WARRANTS

  • Does NRS 18.010, which permits an award of attorney fees to a prevailing party in a civil action, permit a fee award against a police department ordered to return a large amount of cash and other property seized pursuant to a criminal search warrant.

Visit the Nevada Appellate Report for more legal news.

Nevada Appellate Courts Advance Opinions for July 19, 2018

Posted on by Jeff Jaeger

Nevada Appellate Courts Advance Opinions for July 19, 2018

LABARBERA VS. WYNN LAS VEGAS, LLC

  • Did the district court abuse its discretion under the Nevada Supreme Court Rule Part IX-B(B) when its written order summarily denied a civil defendant’s request to testify at trial using audiovisual equipment.
  • What standard must a court use to determine the admissibility of intoxication as a defense to a contract claim.

STATE VS. DIST. CT. (KEPHART (JOHN))

  • What determines felony enhancement for domestic battery under NRS 200.485.

GLOVER-ARMONT V. CARGILE

  • Does the discretionary-act immunity doctrine apply to an action arising from a vehicular accident involving a police officer responding to an emergency.

Visit the Nevada Appellate Report for more legal news.

Can a defendant be prosecuted twice for the same offense if he or she fails to comply with the terms of a plea agreement?

Posted on by Jeff Jaeger

Plea Agreement

Sweat (Lonnie) vs. Dist. Ct. (State) (Nev. Supreme Ct. – Oct. 5, 2017)

The Double Jeopardy Clause protects a defendant from multiple prosecutions for the same offense. This opinion addresses whether a defendant’s failure to comply with the terms of a plea agreement with the State constitutes a waiver of that protection.

On May 9, 2016, the State charged Sweat by way of criminal complaint with battery constituting domestic violence, a category C felony. In Nevada, battery constituting domestic violence is a felony if the defendant has two or more prior convictions for domestic violence within seven years. Because Sweat had priors in 2010 and 2011, the State opted to proceed as a felony. Pursuant to negotiations with the State of Nevada, Sweat agreed to plead guilty in justice court to one count of battery constituting domestic violence, a misdemeanor, and in district court to one count of battery constituting substantial bodily harm, a felony. In exchange for his pleas, the State agreed to drop the charge of battery constituting domestic violence as a felony. Per the agreement, Sweat pleaded guilty to the misdemeanor battery constituting domestic violence and was immediately sentenced to time served. Sweat also waived his right to a preliminary hearing and was bound over to district court for entry of plea on the felony count of battery causing substantial bodily harm.

Continue reading “Can a defendant be prosecuted twice for the same offense if he or she fails to comply with the terms of a plea agreement?” →

Nevada Appellate Courts Advance Opinions for October 5, 2017

Posted on by Jeff Jaeger

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.