Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

At issue in this case was Nev. Rev. Stat. 50.315, which provides that the declaration of a person who collects a criminal defendant’s blood for evidentiary testing may be admitted at trial. The City of Reno charged Respondent with misdemeanor driving under the influence. At a bench trial, the City sought to introduce into evidence the declaration of a phlebotomist who collected Respondent’s blood for evidentiary testing after Respondent’s arrest. Respondent objected, and the municipal court excluded the declaration on Confrontation Clause grounds. The district court denied the City’s subsequent petition for a writ of mandamus, determining that admitting the phlebotomist’s declaration into evidence over Respondent’s objection would have violated Respondent’s right to confrontation. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts requires the Court to overrule its prior decision in City of Las Vegas v. Walsh, where it held that Nev. Rev. Stat. 50.315(6) adequately protects the rights provided by the Confrontation Clause; and (2) section 50.315(6)’s requirement that a defendant establish a substantial and bona fide dispute regarding the facts in a declaration made and offered as evidence pursuant to section 50.315(4) impermissibly burdens the right to confrontation. View "City of Reno v. Howard" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of voluntary manslaughter with the use of a deadly weapon. Defendant appealed, raising several issues for the Supreme Court’s review. After consideration of the issues, the Supreme Court determined that only two had merit and held (1) the district court erred in failing to record numerous bench and in-chambers conferences; (2) the district court erred in failing to excuse for cause a prospective juror who was equivocal about her impartiality; but (3) the errors in this case did not prejudice Defendant and were therefore harmless. View "Preciado v. State" on Justia Law

Defendant was charged with first-offense battery constituting domestic violence, a misdemeanor. Defendant filed a notice for a jury trial, which the justice court denied. Defendant was subsequently convicted of the charged offense. Thereafter, Defendant filed a petition for extraordinary relief, claiming that the offense of domestic battery was serious enough to warrant a jury trial. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Defendant was not entitled to a jury trial on the misdemeanor charge of domestic battery because he did not demonstrate that first-offense domestic battery is a serious offense for which he was entitled to a jury trial. View "Amezcua v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court" on Justia Law

Defendant was charged with sexual assault and possession of child pornography. Defendant filed a motion to suppress evidence found on his computer pursuant to a search warrant because the warrant did not comply with Nev. Rev. Stat. 179.045(5)’s requirement that a warrant include a statement of probable cause or have the affidavit supporting the warrant attached. The district court granted the motion. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) pursuant to State v. Allen, failure to comply with section 179.045(5) triggers exclusion despite the U.S. Supreme Court’s contrary holding in United States v. Grubbs; and (2) in this case, the search warrant’s failure to comply with section 179.045(5) mandated exclusion of the evidence seized pursuant to the warrant. View "State v. Kincade" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of possession of a stolen vehicle, grand larceny of a vehicle, and failure to stop on the signal of a police officer. During the trial, the State used a PowerPoint presentation in its opening statement. One slide showed Defendant's booking photograph with a pop-up that showed the word "guilty" written across Defendant's face. The Supreme Court reversed the conviction, holding (1) the district court erred and abused its discretion in allowing the prosecutor's booking-photo slide sequence in opening statement; and (2) because the State did not show beyond a reasonable doubt that the booking-photo slide sequence did not affect the jury's determination of Defendant's guilt, the error was not harmless. Remanded for a new trial. View "Watters v. State" on Justia Law

At issue in this appeal was the admissibility of expert testimony related to sex offender grooming behavior, which describes the conduct undertaken by an offender to make the victim more receptive to sexual activity with the offender. Appellant was convicted of several counts of lewdness with a minor and sexual assault of a minor. On appeal, Appellant challenged the admission of expert testimony on grooming behaviors and its effect on child victims of sexual abuse. The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of conviction, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the testimony of the expert witness in this case, as the testimony met the qualification, assistance, and limited scope requirements for admissibility and did not impermissibly bolster the victim's testimony. View "Perez v. State" on Justia Law

The State charged Petitioner with two counts of first-degree murder and associated offenses. The State filed a motion in the juvenile court seeking to unseal and release Petitioner's juvenile records to assist in the prosecution. The juvenile court issued an order broadly unsealing and releasing the records for "use in the prosecution." The Supreme Court granted Petitioner's petition for extraordinary relief, holding (1) a district attorney is not statutorily authorized to inspect a defendant's sealed juvenile records to obtain information that will be used against him or her in a subsequent proceeding; and (2) therefore, the juvenile court manifestly abused its discretion by granting the State's motion to inspect Petitioner's sealed juvenile records. View "Clay v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court" on Justia Law

Appellant was charged with a felony for leaving the scene of an accident that resulted in bodily injury. At the close of the evidence at trial, Defendant requested that the jury be instructed that it could not find him guilty of leaving the scene of an accident unless it found Defendant had actual knowledge of the accident at the time it occurred. The trial court refused to give the requested instruction and instead instructed the jury that it could find Defendant guilty of the crime if it found Defendant knew or should have known he had been involved in an accident prior to leaving the scene of the accident. The jury returned a guilty verdict. The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of conviction entered by the district court, holding (1) the State is required to prove the driver had knowledge that he had been involved in an accident to convict him of felony leaving the scene of an accident that resulted in bodily injury, and such knowledge may be actual or constructive; and (2) sufficient evidence supported the jury's finding in this case that Appellant knew or should have known that he was involved in an accident before leaving the scene. View "Clancy v. State" on Justia Law

Appellant was twice convicted in municipal courts of riding a motorcycle without wearing proper headgear. Appellant appealed, seeking a trial de novo. The prosecution subsequently dismissed the charges with prejudice. The district court issued remittiturs, returning the cases to the municipal courts. Thereafter, Appellant filed a motion for his attorney fees and court costs, arguing that Nevada's helmet law is unconstitutionally indeterminate and that his ticketing and prosecution were without probable cause and malicious, entitling him to recover attorney fees as "costs of the action" under Nev. Rev. Stat. 176.115. The district court denied the motion. The Supreme Court dismissed Appellant's appeals, holding that it lacked jurisdiction to hear Appellant's cases where, because they originated in the municipal courts and were heard on appeal by the district court, the district court's appellate jurisdiction was final. View "Stilwell v. City of N. Las Vegas" on Justia Law

Appellant was charged with trafficking, possession for sale, and possession of controlled substances. Appellant filed a motion to suppress the evidence, arguing that the warrantless search of his car that uncovered illegal drugs was prohibited by the Fourth Amendment. The search was conducted after a highway patrol officer saw Appellant run a red light and followed him into a parking lot to issue him a ticket. While the ticket was being processed, a drug detection dog was summoned, and the dog alerted for the presence of drugs in Appellant's car. The district court concluded that for a warrantless automobile search to pass muster under Nevada law, both probable cause and exigency beyond the exigency inherent in a car's ready mobility must be shown. Because the State did not prove exigent circumstances beyond the car's mobility, the district court suppressed the evidence. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) exigency is not a separate requirement of the automobile exception to the constitutional warrant requirement; and (2) the drug detection dog's alert provided probable cause to search Appellant's car. Remanded. View "State v. Lloyd" on Justia Law