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

The case involved Anthony Bolden appealing his jury convictions for burglary while in possession of a deadly weapon, home invasion while in possession of a deadly weapon, first- and second-degree kidnapping with use of a deadly weapon, two counts of robbery with use of a deadly weapon, and conspiracy to commit robbery and/or kidnapping, all arising from a masked break-in of an apartment by Bolden and four others who used knives and similar objects to rob and move occupants between rooms. The court affirmed the convictions for home invasion, robbery, conspiracy, and the deadly weapon enhancements, concluding that sufficient evidence supported the jury's findings of Bolden's participation beyond mere presence. It reversed the burglary and kidnapping convictions and remanded for further proceedings, however, because the jury was not properly instructed on vicarious coconspirator liability as a basis for the specific-intent elements of those crimes and the instructional error could not be deemed harmless.

criminal lawprocedure

The case concerned a dispute over whether soils field technicians or testers working on a public works project were entitled to prevailing wages under Nevada law, after a subcontractor paid an employee below the published rate and a labor trust complained. The Labor Commissioner held a hearing limited to the parties and ruled that such workers did not qualify as "workmen" under the relevant statutes, effectively removing the job classification from eligibility. The Nevada Supreme Court held that this decision amounted to administrative rulemaking rather than adjudication in a contested case because it deleted an entire class of workers from a prior regulation. Because the Labor Commissioner did not follow the Nevada Administrative Procedure Act's notice-and-comment requirements, the court reversed the district court's order upholding the decision.

labor & employmentprocedurebusiness & regulatory

The case involved whether DaimlerChrysler Services, a finance company that purchased retail auto sales contracts including sales tax from Nevada dealers, could claim refunds of sales tax paid to the state under the bad-debt provisions of NRS 372.365(5) after customers defaulted. The Department of Taxation denied the refunds, the Tax Commission affirmed, but the district court granted relief to DaimlerChrysler. The Nevada Supreme Court reversed, holding that the statute unambiguously limits bad-debt relief to retailers who made the original sales and took corresponding federal tax deductions, and that an assignee finance company does not qualify as a retailer under the statutory definitions. The court rejected arguments for interpreting the statute to allow assignees to stand in retailers' shoes, following the approach of most other states that have addressed similar claims.

taxesbusiness & regulatory

The case concerns whether U.S. Laboratories, as a successor corporation, could be held liable for alleged negligence by its predecessor, Buena Geofon, in performing an environmental site assessment that failed to detect hydrocarbon contamination on property purchased by Village Builders. The district court granted summary judgment to U.S. Labs on the successor-liability claims and awarded it costs. The Nevada Supreme Court clarified the elements required to impose liability under the de facto merger and mere continuation exceptions to the general rule against successor liability, declined to adopt a broader continuity-of-enterprise exception, and held that neither exception applied on the facts presented because the predecessor did not cease to exist, ownership and management did not continue in the same form, and other traditional requirements were unmet. The court therefore affirmed the summary judgment but reversed the costs award for lack of a verified memorandum.

business & regulatorytorts & liabilityprocedure

The case involved Clark County's eminent domain action to acquire two parcels of land, one owned by Sun State Properties and the other leased by Sun State from the Pyles trust, for construction of a jail facility. The trial court valued the leasehold and leased-fee interests separately to determine just compensation. The Nevada Supreme Court held that the state's eminent domain statutes adopt the undivided-fee rule, requiring the court to first determine the fair market value of the property as a whole and then apportion that award among the various interests in a later proceeding. The court therefore reversed the judgment and remanded for a new trial on valuation. It also held that a condemnee may recover lost profits caused by unreasonable delay in bringing the case to trial and directed the district court to address that issue on remand.

propertyprocedure

This case involved charges against Richard Tabish and Sandra Murphy stemming from three incidents: the alleged murder and robbery of Ted Binion in his Las Vegas home, the theft of Binion's silver from an underground vault in Pahrump, and the kidnapping, beating, and extortion of Leo Casey in connection with a sand and gravel business (the latter counts applying only to Tabish). Following a jury trial, both appellants were convicted on the Binion and silver counts, with Tabish also convicted on the Casey counts, leading to lengthy prison sentences including life terms. On appeal, the Nevada Supreme Court reversed the convictions, concluding that the district court's refusal to sever the Casey counts from the other charges and its failure to provide a crucial limiting instruction deprived the defendants of a fair trial. The court rejected the appellants' argument that the State failed to prove criminal agency in Binion's death but found it unnecessary to address certain other claims, such as those involving the charging document and jury misconduct, given the reversal on joinder grounds. The remaining assignments of error were deemed without merit.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involves Richard Haberstroh's second post-conviction challenge to his 1987 Nevada convictions for first-degree murder, kidnapping, sexual assault, and robbery, for which he received a death sentence based on five aggravating circumstances. The district court vacated the death sentence after finding that the jury's finding of depravity of mind as an aggravator was unconstitutional without a proper limiting instruction, but it denied relief on all claims attacking the underlying convictions. On appeal, the Nevada Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the unconstitutional aggravator was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt given the remaining valid aggravators and lack of mitigation, while rejecting Haberstroh's numerous other claims regarding ineffective assistance of counsel, jury instructions, identification procedures, waiver of counsel, and due process violations as meritless. The court therefore upheld the convictions but ordered a new penalty hearing.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved Randy Richmond's convictions for lewdness with a child under fourteen based on allegations by A.B., where the trial court admitted testimony and other evidence concerning similar alleged conduct with another child, A.R., as prior bad act evidence. The Nevada Supreme Court held that its recent decision in Braunstein v. State, which modified the standards for admitting such propensity evidence in sex crime prosecutions, applies retroactively to all cases tried before Braunstein but still pending on direct appeal if the issue was preserved. Applying the Braunstein framework, the court concluded that the evidence of A.R.'s allegations was improperly admitted in the trial on A.B.'s charges. It therefore reversed the convictions and remanded for a new trial.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved Wilbert Emory Leslie's post-conviction habeas corpus petition challenging his convictions for burglary, robbery, and first-degree murder, as well as his death sentence based on multiple aggravating circumstances. Leslie claimed that his trial and appellate counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to object to certain prosecutorial statements during the guilt and penalty phases and by not raising other issues. The Nevada Supreme Court applied the Strickland v. Washington standard, assuming without deciding that some counsel performance may have been deficient but concluding that Leslie failed to show prejudice because the statements did not affect the verdict or appeal outcome, the prosecutor's comments were not improper, and remaining claims lacked merit or were previously decided. The court therefore affirmed the district court's denial of the petition without an evidentiary hearing. The topics are criminal law and procedure.

criminal lawprocedure

In Allan v. State, the defendant was convicted of first-degree murder after shooting his girlfriend and received two consecutive life sentences. The central issue was whether the district court properly ruled that the defendant's post-arrest statements to police, obtained during a lengthy interview after multiple invocations of his right to remain silent and to counsel, were voluntary and thus admissible for impeachment purposes even though taken in violation of Miranda. The Nevada Supreme Court reversed the conviction and remanded for a new trial, holding that the statements were involuntary under the totality of the circumstances, including the defendant's intoxication, sleep deprivation, repeated requests to stop questioning, police pressure tactics, and the denial of access to an attorney who had arrived at the station. This error deprived the defendant of his constitutional right to testify without fear of impeachment with the statements.

criminal lawprocedurecivil rights

In Vega v. Eastern Courtyard Associates, plaintiff Wendy Vega sued the owner of a medical facility after she slipped and fell on a ramp leading to the entrance, alleging that the ramp's excessive slope violated the Uniform Building Code as adopted by Clark County ordinance and therefore constituted negligence per se. The district court refused to instruct the jury on the negligence per se doctrine, instead allowing the jury to consider any code violation only as evidence of negligence, and the jury returned a verdict for the defendant. On appeal, the Nevada Supreme Court held that violation of a building code provision enacted by county ordinance qualifies as negligence per se when the plaintiff is within the class the provision protects and the harm is of the type the provision seeks to prevent. The court reversed the judgment and remanded, reasoning that its prior precedents applying negligence per se to statutes and municipal ordinances extended to such building codes and that the jury should have been properly instructed on the doctrine.

torts & liability

The case concerned whether Nevada's open meeting law, NRS chapter 241, allowed a presidential search committee of the University and Community College System of Nevada to interview applicants for the community college president position in a closed session. The district court had ruled that the position qualified as a public office, requiring open interviews, based on the definition of public officer in NRS 281.005(1). The Nevada Supreme Court reversed, holding that the community college president is not a public officer because the position was created by the Board of Regents rather than by constitution, statute, charter, or ordinance, and because the president's duties involve implementing Board policies rather than exercising sovereign governmental functions on a continuous basis. As a result, the open meeting law's prohibition on closed sessions for public officer appointments did not apply, permitting the closed interviews.

procedure

This case concerned a writ petition challenging the disqualification of attorney Thomas Mehesan from representing plaintiffs Florence and David Brown in a medical malpractice action against Dr. John Thalgott. The underlying dispute arose after a paralegal who had assisted opposing counsel in the case joined the plaintiffs' lead firm, prompting a motion to disqualify both the firm and its co-counsel Mehesan under SCR 160 and prior precedent. The Supreme Court of Nevada granted the petition and held that Mehesan should not be disqualified. The court reasoned that imputed disqualification requires evidence of a reasonable probability that the attorney actually obtained material confidential information, rather than mere professional association or an appearance of impropriety.

proceduretorts & liability

In this eminent domain case, Clark County filed a condemnation action to acquire two parcels of commercially zoned property near the Las Vegas Convention Center for expansion purposes, after negotiations with the landowners failed. The key dispute centered on the definition of fair market value for determining just compensation: the landowners successfully moved the district court to instruct the jury using a "highest price" standard drawn from prior case law, resulting in a $9,000,000 verdict, while the county argued for the "most probable price" standard codified in the 1993 amendment to NRS 37.009. After an eight-day trial featuring conflicting expert appraisals, the Supreme Court of Nevada reversed the district court's judgment, holding that the statutory "most probable price" definition controls in condemnation proceedings and explicitly overruling the conflicting precedent in Wheeler v. State. The court remanded the matter for a new trial based on the correct jury instruction.

property