Tag: NRS 48.045

Nevada Appellate Courts Advance Opinions for December 10, 2020

Posted on by Jeff Jaeger

Nevada Appellate Courts Advance Opinions for December 10, 2020

BANKA (JACK) VS. STATE

  • Must a defendant be informed of the existence of a mandatory minimum fine in order to make a knowing, voluntary decision to enter a plea.

WALKER VS. DIST. CT. (MICHAELS)

  • What does the appellate court consider when deciding whether to review a discretionary order or judgment of the court below.

LATHIGEE VS. BRITISH COLUMBIA SEC. COMM’N

  • Did the district court properly recognize and enforce in Nevada a disgorgement portion of a securities fraud judgment from British Columbia.

RANDOLPH (THOMAS) VS. STATE (DEATH PENALTY-DIRECT)

  • Did the district court abuse its discretion in admitting prior bad act evidence.

KAUR VS. SINGH

  • What should a district court consider before considering whether a party sufficiently raised a defense to the application of the doctrine of judicial estoppel.

Visit the Nevada Appellate Report for more legal news.

Nevada Appellate Courts Advance Opinions for June 4, 2020

Posted on by Jeff Jaeger

Nevada Appellate Courts Advance Opinions for June 4, 2020

Belcher v. State

  • What factors are considered to help determine whether the Nevada Supreme Court should consider an error’s harmlessness when the State has not argued harmlessness in a death penalty case.

Visit the Nevada Appellate Report for more legal news.

Nevada Appellate Courts Advance Opinions for January 30, 2020

Posted on by Jeff Jaeger

Nevada Appellate Courts Advance Opinions for January 30, 2020

Paulos v. FCH1, LLC

  • What is the preclusive effect of a qualified-immunity decision where the federal district court’s judgment addressed both prongs of the qualified-immunity inquiry, but the federal appellate court addressed only one prong to affirm the judgment.

Flowers v. State

  • Was evidence of a subsequent murder properly admitted in a murder prosecution under the identity exception to NRS 48.045(2).

Visit the Nevada Appellate Report for more legal news.

Nevada Appellate Courts Advance Opinions for August 2, 2018

Posted on by Jeff Jaeger

Nevada Appellate Courts Advance Opinions for August 2, 2018

COLES (BRENT) VS. BISBEE

  • Does the Parole Board’s use of the Static-99R recidivism risk assessment comply with the relevant statutory provisions governing parole review for prisoners convicted of sexual offenses.

SHORES VS. GLOBAL EXPERIENCE SPECIALISTS, INC.

  • Must a noncompete agreement that imposes a nationwide restriction be limited to the geographical areas in which an employer has particular business interests.

N. NEVADA HOMES, LLC VS. GL CONSTR., INC.

  • What is the proper method of determining the prevailing party when faced with both a settlement and a damages recovery.

IN RE: PARENTAL RIGHTS AS TO S.L., N.R.B., H.R.B., W.C.B. C/W 71889

  • Does the termination of parental rights bases on the parents’ refusal to admit to abuse violate their Fifth Amendment rights.

SFR INVESTMENTS POOL 1, LLC VS. BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON (NRAP 5)

  • Does NRS 116.31168(1)’s incorporation of NRS 107.090 require a homeowner’s association to provide notices of default and/or sale to persons or entities holding a subordinate interest even when such persons or entities did not request notice, prior to the amendment that took effect on October 1, 2015.

GRANADA-RUIZ (GAMBINO) VS. DIST. CT. (STATE)

  • When does double jeopardy prohibit a retrial.

CLARK CTY. VS. HQ METRO, LLC

  • Does an order for immediate occupancy permitting a party to occupy a permanent easement vest a right to compensation.

NEVADA RECYCLING AND SALVAGE, LTD VS. RENO DISPOSAL CO., INC.

  • Were the appellants injured in their business and therefore have standing to assert their claim under the Nevada Unfair Trade Practice Act (UTPA).

HUBBARD (CORY) VS. STATE

  • Must the defense place intent or absence of mistake at issue before the State can seek admission of prior act evidence.

RIPPO (MICHAEL) VS. STATE (DEATH PENALTY-PC)

Visit the Nevada Appellate Report for more legal news.

Is uncharged act evidence admissible in juvenile delinquency proceedings?

Posted on by Jeff Jaeger

Picture of a young mand reaching into a car to take a package.

In Re: N.J., A Minor Child (Nev. Supreme Ct. – June 28, 2018)

The issue is whether the juvenile court abused its discretion in admitting uncharged acts as evidence.

On September 22, 2015, N.J. and a group of mutual acquaintances were at a park in Fallon, Nevada, when N.J. attempted to fight the victim in this case. According to witness testimony, N.J. believed that her boyfriend, T.H., was sexually intimate with the victim. The victim eluded an altercation and left the park.

Later that evening, the victim received a text message from T.H. The victim and TB, planned to visit Walmart to purchase pajamas. T.H. picked up the victim, but instead of visiting Walmart, they drove to an isolated area behind Walmart. After they parked the vehicle, N.J. pulled up in a vehicle behind them. N.J. left her vehicle and entered the vehicle carrying the victim. N.J. struck the temple of the victim’s head, threatened to hurt the victim if she did not stay away from T.H., and spat on the victim.

The State filed a delinquency petition in juvenile court charging N.J. with one count of battery and one count of harassment. During an evidentiary hearing, N.J. objected to the admission of testimony regarding two uncharged acts, namely testimony that she had (1) challenged the victim to a fight earlier in the day at the park, and (2) spat on the victim after the battery and harassment. With regard to the two uncharged acts, the district court overruled the objections based on the res gestae doctrine. The district court ultimately adjudicated N.J. delinquent on both counts. N.J. appealed.

Continue reading “Is uncharged act evidence admissible in juvenile delinquency proceedings?” →

Nevada Appellate Courts Advance Opinions for June 28, 2018

Posted on by Jeff Jaeger

Nevada Appellate Courts Advance Opinions for June 28, 2018

IN RE: N.J., A MINOR CHILD

WEST SUNSET 2050 TRUST VS. NATIONSTAR MORTG., LLC

  • Did a deed of trust survive an HOA foreclosure sale because the HOA failed to provide statutorily required preforeclosure notice.

Visit the Nevada Appellate Report for more legal news.

When can offenses be joined as a common plan or scheme?

Posted on by Jeff Jaeger

Joinder Common Plan or Scheme

Farmer (Steven) vs. State  (Nev. Supreme Ct. – Nov. 16, 2017

Farmer was charged with numerous sexual offenses based on accusations that he used his position as a certified nursing assistant (CNA) to take advantage of multiple patients in his care. The State of Nevada argued that Farmer should face five of his accusers in one trial and Farmer argued in favor of separate trials. After a hearing on the matter, the trial court granted the State’s motion to join the offenses under the theory that they were committed pursuant to a common scheme or plan according to NRS 173.115(2). In this appeal, Farmer argued that the Supreme Court of Nevada has construed the common scheme or plan language to permit joinder only where the defendant had an overarching plan, which involved committing each offense as an individual step toward a predetermined goal, and since his offenses were crimes of opportunity, the trial court erred by joining them.

Continue reading “When can offenses be joined as a common plan or scheme?” →

Nevada Appellate Courts Advance Opinions for November 16, 2017

Posted on by Jeff Jaeger

Nevada Appellate Courts Advance Opinions for November 16, 2017

IN RE: DISCIPLINE OF CHRISTOPHER READE

  • Does SCR 102 provide for the imposition of a fine when the State Bar Disciplinary Board recommends that an attorney be suspended or disbarred.

FARMER (STEVEN) VS. STATE

  • When can offenses be joined as being committed as parts of a common plan or scheme pursuant to NRS 173.115(2).

HARRIS V. STATE

  • Can counsel’s affirmative misrepresentation regarding filing a postconviction petition and subsequent abandonment of the petitioner be an impediment external to the defense to satisfy cause for the delay under NRS 34.726(1)(a) for filing an untimely petition.

KNICKMEYER V. STATE OF NEVADA

  • Do the provisions of NRS Chapter 289, which are intended to provide job-related protections to peace officers employed by law enforcement agencies, apply to bailiffs and marshals employed by the Eighth Judicial District Court.

SIERRA PACK’G V. CHIEF AD. OFF’R OF NOSHA

  • What standard must the Nevada Occupational Safety and Health Administration utilize to establish employee exposure to hazard.

CITY OF LAS VEGAS VS. DIST. CT. (KAMIDE (STEVEN))

  • Does NRS 50.155(1) impose a duty to limit out-of-court communications between witnesses about their testimony when the witness exclusion rule has been invoked.

Visit the Nevada Appellate Report for more legal news.