Charles E. Springer

In Stubbs v. State, the defendant pleaded guilty to first-degree murder with use of a deadly weapon under a plea agreement in which the State stipulated to a sentence of life with the possibility of parole; defense counsel noted that the court was not bound by the stipulation. At the sentencing hearing, the prosecutor made extended comments explaining the practical reasons for the plea bargain, including risks of a compromised jury verdict, and also presented a victim impact statement from the victim's daughter; the court then imposed consecutive life sentences without parole. The Nevada Supreme Court held that the prosecutor's comments breached the plea agreement under precedents requiring meticulous adherence to its terms and spirit, but found that calling the victim witness did not violate the agreement because it complied with statutory requirements for victim impact evidence. The court therefore vacated the sentence and remanded for a new sentencing hearing to allow specific performance of the stipulation.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved Edna Hayes' claim for workers' compensation treatment of her right knee, which developed as a result of an antalgic limp from a prior work-related left knee injury sustained in 1979. The State Industrial Insurance System denied the claim, but an administrative appeals officer granted it under NRS 616C.160, finding a causal relationship to the industrial injury; the district court reversed that decision by applying the stricter primary-cause standard of NRS 616C.175(2). The Nevada Supreme Court reversed the district court and reinstated the appeals officer's ruling, holding that NRS 616C.175(2) applies only to cases involving subsequent non-industrial aggravations of an original injury, not to newly manifested symptoms that are direct extensions of the industrial accident itself. The court reasoned that Hayes' right knee condition was a compensable consequence of the 1979 workplace injury rather than an aggravation by an intervening non-employment cause, so the ordinary causal-relationship standard governed.

labor & employment

This case involved an appeal from convictions for child sexual abuse that resulted in a life sentence with the possibility of parole for appellant Mark Marvelle. The charges stemmed from uncorroborated allegations by a fifteen-year-old complainant regarding an incident years earlier, and the defense sought but was denied a psychological examination of the complainant while the state presented multiple witnesses who vouched for her credibility and mental state based on their experience with child abuse cases. The court reversed the convictions and remanded for a new trial, holding that Marvelle was entitled to the requested evaluation, that the state's witnesses effectively offered expert testimony despite its representations to the contrary, and that it was unfair to allow the state such access while denying the defense the ability to present opposing evidence on the complainant's veracity and mental condition.

criminal lawprocedure

In Oade v. State, the defendant was convicted of two counts of fraudulent gaming after being arrested for increasing bets during a blackjack game at a Reno casino; he claimed intoxication caused any mistakes and challenged the trial proceedings on appeal. The Nevada Supreme Court reviewed claims of judicial misconduct, including the trial judge's repeated warnings, fines, interruptions, and comments toward defense counsel, along with issues over jury instructions. Although the defendant did not object at every instance, the court addressed the claims under the plain error doctrine because counsel had attempted to raise concerns early and further objections risked antagonizing the judge. The majority held that the judge's conduct, taken as a whole, amounted to cumulative error that may have prejudiced the defendant's right to a fair trial. The court therefore reversed the conviction and remanded the case.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involves appeals by three minors from juvenile court orders certifying them for adult prosecution in matters involving the use or threatened use of a deadly weapon. The Nevada Supreme Court interpreted the 1995 amendments to NRS 62.080, which create a presumption favoring certification to adult court unless the minor was not a principal actor or exceptional circumstances (such as substance abuse or emotional issues treatable in juvenile court) are shown. The court explained that the state must first file a pleading and establish prosecutive merit by probable cause that the minor committed an offense involving a deadly weapon to trigger the presumption, after which the burden shifts to the minor to rebut it, and remanded the cases for reconsideration under this framework. The court rejected an equal protection challenge to the statute but did not reach a vagueness claim.

criminal law

The case concerns the denial of industrial insurance (workers' compensation) benefits to Susan Reeves for injuries from a 1988 car accident in her employer's parking lot. Administrative bodies denied her claim for failure to meet the formal written filing requirements of NRS 616.500 and on the ground that her injuries stemmed from a prior non-work-related accident. The district court set aside the denial and remanded the matter to Bally's self-insured administrator for reconsideration. The Nevada Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the record showed inadequate consideration of whether Reeves had sufficient reason (such as mistake or lack of knowledge) to excuse her late filing and that she had not been given a fair opportunity to present medical evidence on whether the work accident caused or aggravated her injuries under the applicable pre-1993 legal standard.

labor & employment