Robert E. Rose

In this case, the Nevada Supreme Court considered whether its 2004 decision in McConnell v. State, which limited the use of certain felony aggravators in capital cases, retroactively applies to appellant John Bejarano's final 1988 conviction and death sentence for the robbery and murder of a taxicab driver. The court held that McConnell announced a new rule of substantive law that must be applied retroactively, invalidating the robbery and receiving-money aggravators found by the jury in Bejarano's case. After striking those aggravators and reweighing the remaining valid aggravators against the mitigating evidence, the court concluded that any effect of the invalid aggravators on the jury's sentencing decision was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt and affirmed the district court's denial of post-conviction relief.

criminal lawprocedure

Archanian was convicted of two counts of first-degree murder with a deadly weapon and two counts of robbery with a deadly weapon, all involving victims aged 65 or older, after beating to death the owner and her mother of a jewelry store during a theft of merchandise, for which he received a death sentence. On direct appeal, the Nevada Supreme Court reviewed multiple alleged trial errors as well as the validity of the death sentence under mandatory review standards. The court concluded that none of the claimed errors required reversal of the convictions. It determined that one of the two aggravating circumstances found by the jury must be invalidated under McConnell v. State, but after reweighing the remaining aggravating evidence against the mitigating evidence, held beyond a reasonable doubt that the jury would still have returned a death verdict. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of conviction and the sentence of death.

criminal lawprocedure

In Abbott v. State, Thomas Abbott was convicted of two counts of lewdness with a minor under fourteen based on allegations that he fondled his girlfriend's nine-year-old daughter, receiving concurrent life sentences with parole eligibility after ten years. The defendant sought to introduce evidence of the victim's prior allegedly false sexual assault accusations against him and others, and requested an independent psychological evaluation of the victim, both of which the district court denied. On appeal, the Nevada Supreme Court reversed the convictions and remanded for a new trial, holding that the trial court abused its discretion by excluding the prior false allegations evidence under the Miller standard and that the defendant was entitled to the psychological evaluation under a reinstated Koerschner test; the court also overruled Romano, clarified Chapman regarding expert witnesses, and emphasized the need to balance the defendant's fair trial rights with the victim's privacy interests.

criminal lawprocedurecivil rights

In this case, homeowners Dionicio and Kathryn Albios sued developer Horizon Communities for construction defects in their Nevada residence. Horizon made three successive offers of judgment under NRCP 68 and NRS 17.115, which the Albioses rejected; after trial, the jury awarded $100,000 (reduced 5% for comparative negligence). The district court granted the Albioses attorney fees and costs under NRS 40.655, but both sides appealed the fee and interest calculations. The Nevada Supreme Court held that NRS 40.655 permits recovery of fees as damages but does not bar application of offer-of-judgment penalties, that only the final offer controls, and that adding prejudgment interest made the verdict more favorable than that offer, so fees and costs were properly awarded; however, the court reversed and remanded because the district court failed to apply the Brunzell factors when setting the fee amount and miscalculated prejudgment interest on the verdict, costs, and fees.

propertyproceduretorts & liability

The case concerned a challenge to the Sustainable Growth Initiative (SGI), a voter-passed measure in Douglas County, Nevada, that capped new residential building permits at 280 units annually to manage growth in certain areas. Multiple developers and the county sued, arguing the initiative conflicted with the county's existing Master Plan on issues such as recommended growth rates, infrastructure planning, affordable housing, and transfer of development rights. The district court granted summary judgment to the challengers, ruling the SGI inconsistent with the Master Plan and therefore void. On appeal, the Nevada Supreme Court reversed, holding that the SGI was not so inconsistent with the Master Plan as to justify invalidating a voter-approved measure and that it substantially aligned with the Plan's overarching goals for controlled development.

environmentpropertyelections

This case involved two former North Las Vegas police officers who were terminated from their positions and sought to arbitrate their grievances under a collective bargaining agreement with the City of North Las Vegas and their union. After the district court compelled arbitration, the officers' motion for attorney fees was denied, and they later challenged the arbitration awards that upheld their terminations. The Nevada Supreme Court affirmed the denial of attorney fees, concluding that the officers failed to show a substantial benefit to the city or satisfy the statutory requirements under NRS 18.010. The court also reversed the district courts' orders vacating the arbitration awards, holding that the officers' arguments under NRS 38.145 and manifest disregard of the law were without merit, and remanded to confirm the awards.

labor & employmentprocedure