5322 research outputs found
Sort by
Chadwick v. State of Nevada, 140 Nev. Adv. Op. 10 (Feb. 29, 2024)
Get PDFIn an appeal regarding a conviction for fleeing the scene of an accident involving personal injury, the Nevada Court of Appeals upheld the lower court\u27s ruling. The court held that the district court appropriately admitted evidence of the appellant\u27s alcohol consumption and intoxication, deeming it relevant to his motive for fleeing the accident scene. Additionally, the court ruled that when a defendant directly introduces evidence of bad acts, it falls upon the defendant to request an instruction limiting the jury\u27s consideration of such evidence
Clark County v. 6635 W Oquendo LLC, 140 Nev. Adv. Op. 15 (Mar. 14, 2024)
Get PDFA governmental entity is not a “person” for purposes of NRS 41.660, Nevada’s anti-SLAPP statute, and, therefore, cannot file a special motion to dismiss. Accordingly, the Supreme Court of Nevada affirmed the district court’s order denying Appellant’s special motion to dismiss
The State Where Sex Is Everywhere, Yet Is Still a Sin on the Books: Why Prostitution Should Be Decriminalized in Nevada
Get PDFHarris (Barry) v. Warden, 140 Nev. Adv. Op. 35 (May. 30, 2024)
Get PDFPetitioners have a statutory right to be present for an evidentiary hearing. They may waive this right, but it must be clear in the record that the petitioner personally waived the right. An evidentiary hearing without the petitioner’s presence will be reviewed for harmless error
Morrison v. State of Nevada, 140 Nev. Adv. Op. 24 (Apr. 4, 2024)
Get PDFKwame De-Markquise Morrison raised five issues after a jury found him guilty of three counts of sexual assault upon a minor under the age of 14 years and one count of use of a minor under the age of 14 to produce pornography. Morrison contended that the district court erred when it instructed the jury that lack of knowledge, or mistake of fact as to the victim’s age, is not a defense to the charge of use of a minor in producing pornography, NRS 200.710(1). Second, Morrison alleged that the district court abused its discretion by denying his motion to dismiss counsel. Third, he alleged that the district court erred by failing to conduct a Faretta canvass. Fourth, he argued that the State committed prosecutorial misconduct. Fifth, Morrison contended the State improperly commented on the evidence during the closing argument. The Nevada Court of Appeals found that the district court provided an inaccurate jury instruction to the jury regarding NRS 200.710(1); nevertheless, the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. The Court rejected Morrison’s other four arguments and found that the district court did not abuse its discretion
Blige v. Terry [State of Nevada], 139 Nev. Adv. Op. 60 (Dec. 28, 2023)
Get PDFBlige received Bitcoin transfers from Terry and had taken compromising photos of him during a romantic relationship. Blige failed to appear for the damages hearing and the district court proceeded to amend the complaint and default judgment already including conversion, unjust enrichment, and intentional infliction of emotional distress to include extortion as well. However, a party cannot impliedly consent to be tried on claims not included in their original pleadings and thus cannot be tried for the tort of extortion, but is eligible to default on the other claims
Willson v. First Jud. Dist. Ct., 140 Nev. Adv. Op. 7 (Feb. 22, 2024)
Get PDFThe Nevada Court of Appeals ruled on the proper interpretation of a Nevada statute prohibiting obstruction of an officer’s activities. Previously, the rule simply stated that no one could “willfully hinder, delay, or obstruct” an officer exercising police powers or duties. The court ruled that the intent must be specific to disrupting the officer, and that the acts must beeither physical conduct or fighting words. After the court’s construal of the rule, the court ruled the statute was not unconstitutionally overbroad or vague, neither on its face nor as applied to the facts in this case. Although the court ruled that Willson’s constitutionality claim failed, the court instructed the district court to reconsider whether the Court of Appeals’ interpretation of the statute changed the sufficiency of the evidence against Willson