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

This case involves the division of community property in a divorce proceeding between Mitchell and Barbara Putterman. The family court awarded the wife additional assets beyond an equal share, citing fairness and the husband's lesser contributions. The Nevada Supreme Court clarified that under the 1993 amendment to NRS 125.150, community property must be divided equally unless compelling reasons for unequal division are found and stated in writing. Although the trial court improperly relied on equitable factors like relative contributions, its findings of the husband's financial misconduct—such as refusing to account for finances, lying about income, and misusing credit cards—provided sufficient compelling reasons to justify the unequal disposition, leading the court to affirm the judgment.

family lawproperty

In Quevedo v. State, the appellant was convicted of seven counts of sexually assaulting his seven-year-old daughter based on the victim's testimony along with hearsay statements she made to her teacher and a sheriff's deputy. The Nevada Supreme Court reversed the convictions and remanded for a new trial, ruling that the trial court violated NRS 51.385 by admitting the hearsay without first holding a hearing outside the jury's presence to assess whether the time, content, and circumstances of the statements provided sufficient guarantees of trustworthiness. The majority reasoned that the statute explicitly requires this hearing as a prerequisite to admissibility unless the statements qualify under another recognized hearsay exception, and that the requirement applies even absent a defense objection at trial, following its prior decision in Lytle v. State. Dissenting justices argued that any error was harmless given the victim's live testimony and cross-examination at trial.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved a dispute between divorced parents Donald Mosley and Terry Figliuzzi over custody of their young son, where the parties had previously obtained multiple court orders for joint legal and physical custody. After the mother filed a motion to amend the latest joint custody order, the trial court instead terminated the father's custodial rights and awarded sole custody to the mother. The Nevada Supreme Court reversed that decision, holding that the trial court committed a procedural error by altering custody without a proper change-of-custody motion pending before it and failed to follow applicable state statutes governing custody modifications. The court noted that three prior decrees had found joint custody to be in the child's best interest and that the record did not support an abrupt shift to sole custody.

family lawprocedure

This case involves a negligence lawsuit brought by Ann Ashwood and her husband after she injured her knee while climbing a locked chain-link fence at Horseman's Park in Las Vegas to assist a fallen horseback rider during a show. Ashwood claimed that Clark County, the event sponsor, and the barn manager breached a duty to keep a nearby gate unlocked, citing the Uniform Building Code, a lease agreement, and equestrian safety standards. The trial court granted summary judgment to the defendants, finding no such duty existed. On appeal, the Nevada Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the building code provision and other cited sources did not create a duty owed to Ashwood in these circumstances. The core reasoning centered on the limited scope of any regulatory or contractual obligations and the absence of a legal requirement to maintain unlocked exits for this type of emergency access.

torts & liabilityprocedure

This case is a divorce action in which the husband cross-appealed the district court's unequal division of community property under the 1993 amendment to NRS 125.150. The Nevada Supreme Court affirmed the judgment, holding that the statute requires an equal division of community property unless the court finds compelling reasons for an unequal division and states those reasons in writing. The court concluded that the husband's financial misconduct, including transferring community funds to his father and using community assets in violation of a preliminary injunction, wasting or secreting approximately $96,000 in community property, constituted compelling reasons for an unequal disposition. The trial court's findings supporting these facts were not clearly erroneous, and the wife's share was properly augmented by roughly half the value of the misused assets.

family lawproperty

Sean White was convicted of murder with use of a deadly weapon, conspiracy to commit murder, conspiracy to commit robbery, and attempted robbery with use of a deadly weapon, based on identifications by three eyewitnesses to a robbery and shooting in a Las Vegas parking garage. The Nevada Supreme Court affirmed the convictions, ruling that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in excluding expert psychological testimony on factors affecting eyewitness reliability and in denying a mistrial over a juror's racially charged remarks reported during penalty-phase deliberations. The majority reasoned that the three consistent identifications left no considerable doubt about reliability, distinguishing the case from prior precedent requiring such testimony, that the trial judge was best positioned to evaluate the need for expert assistance, and that the comments did not show the guilt-phase trial was unfair.

criminal lawcivil rightsprocedure

This case involved tenants challenging practices in Nevada justices' courts regarding summary eviction proceedings, specifically a court rule barring appeals from eviction orders and the courts' handling of tenant oppositions. The district court declared the no-appeal rule and the summary eviction statute unconstitutional, ordered the justices' courts to hold hearings whenever tenants filed opposition affidavits, and awarded tenants over $18,000 in attorneys' fees. On appeal, the Nevada Supreme Court held that the rule denying appeals from justices' courts violated the state constitution's provisions on district court appellate jurisdiction and uniform application of laws, but ruled that the eviction statute was constitutional and required hearings only when a tenant properly filed an affidavit contesting the eviction. The court further determined that attorneys' fees were not available because the action did not involve enforcement of federal civil rights laws under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The decision reversed the district court's orders on the statute's validity, mandatory hearings in all cases, and the fee award.

propertyprocedurecivil rights

The case involved Anthony Doyle's appeal from convictions for first-degree murder, conspiracy to commit murder, first-degree kidnapping, and sexual assault, along with a death sentence, arising from the 1994 killing of Ebony Mason after she was sexually assaulted and beaten by Doyle and accomplices. Doyle challenged the convictions on grounds including racially discriminatory use of peremptory challenges, insufficient evidence to support the kidnapping, conspiracy, and sexual assault charges, and errors in jury instructions defining deliberation for first-degree murder and implied malice. The Nevada Supreme Court affirmed the convictions and sentence, holding that the evidence was sufficient, that the jury instructions were adequate, and that sexual assault could be sustained even if penetration occurred after the victim's death, as the necrophilia statute separately criminalizes post-mortem acts without displacing the assault conviction. The court rejected the equal protection claim regarding jury selection as unsupported by the record.

criminal lawprocedurecivil rights

The case involved a ten-year-old boy adjudicated delinquent in juvenile court for sexual assault based on an incident during a children's game where he allegedly touched a girl's genitalia. The Nevada Supreme Court reversed the adjudication, finding insufficient evidence of the penetration required for a sexual assault conviction. The court's reasoning centered on the lack of direct testimony or physical evidence supporting vaginal penetration, with most accounts describing only external touching that lasted briefly.

criminal law

In Shimrak v. Garcia-Mendoza, a private investigator sued a law firm for unpaid compensation totaling over $140,000 for investigative services rendered in multiple cases, including hourly fees and a ten-percent share of attorney fees under alleged agreements. The Nevada Supreme Court consolidated two appeals from orders dismissing the claims, one involving whether a check notation stating "Lau-Balance pd off" created an accord and satisfaction, and the other concerning whether the fee-splitting contract was unenforceable due to the parties being in pari delicto or violating Supreme Court Rule 106. The court reversed both dismissals and remanded for trial, holding that the check notation's meaning required factual resolution by a trier of fact rather than dismissal as a matter of law, that SCR 106 provides only a privilege against defamation actions and not immunity from civil suits, and that in pari delicto principles did not bar enforcement of the service contracts at the pleading stage. A dissent would have affirmed dismissal of the fee-splitting claim on public policy grounds.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case centered on a dispute between out-of-state attorney Harvey L. Lerer and local Nevada attorney Donald Smith over division of contingency fees from a personal injury settlement reached in two consolidated district court actions. Lerer petitioned the Nevada Supreme Court for a writ of prohibition, arguing the district court lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate Smith's motion to enforce an attorney's lien under NRS 18.015 or related contempt matters. The court granted the writ, ordering dismissal of both cases and vacation of the district court's orders, on the ground that the lien statute applies only to attorney-client fee agreements and does not cover purely inter-attorney disputes without a direct retainer between the local counsel and the client.

procedure

This case involved at-will employees of Bigelow Holding Company who sued for tortious discharge, claiming they were fired for objecting to the company's racially discriminatory practices; two employees also sued for wrongful eviction, and a third party sued for assault and battery committed by an employee. The Nevada Supreme Court reversed the tortious discharge judgments, holding that the employees failed to establish a prima facie case because they did not refuse or object to engaging in the practices in a manner that implicated the public policy exception to at-will employment. The court affirmed the wrongful eviction judgments under NRS 118A.180(2)(h), which bars such claims only when occupancy rights are solely conditional on employment, and affirmed the assault and battery judgment based on evidence that the tortfeasor acted within the scope of employment.

labor & employmentcivil rightstorts & liability

The case involved Marilyn Evans, who was denied unemployment benefits by the Nevada Employment Security Department after being terminated from her job due to missing work while incarcerated pretrial because she could not afford bail following an arrest for cruelty to animals. The district court reversed the denial, and the Supreme Court of Nevada affirmed that decision. The court held that none of the statutory grounds for denying benefits—voluntary quitting without good cause, discharge for work-related crimes, or misconduct connected with work—applied, as Evans' absence was not deliberate or voluntary and her criminal conduct was unconnected to her employment. The majority reasoned that inability to post bail, rather than the criminal acts themselves, caused the unavailability for work, and Evans had notified her employer of her situation.

labor & employmentcriminal law

In Smith v. State, the defendant was convicted of eight counts of incest involving his adult daughter and, in a consolidated case, two counts of sexual assault with a minor under fourteen and one count of child abuse and neglect involving his younger daughter. The Nevada Supreme Court affirmed the incest convictions but reversed the sexual assault and child abuse convictions, remanding those charges for a new trial. The court reasoned that the prosecutor's intentional positioning during the child victim's direct examination violated the defendant's Sixth Amendment confrontation right by completely obstructing face-to-face viewing, contrary to precedent in Coy v. Iowa, and that this error was not harmless as to the charges involving the minor. The erroneous admission of Sanity Commission doctors' testimony was found to be harmless error overall.

criminal lawcivil rights