Thomas L. Steffen

This case concerned the termination of parental rights of Michele Jean Deck, the mother of Christy Amber Deck, who was placed under guardianship due to paranoid schizophrenia, and William Dupree, the putative father. The district court granted termination after years of monitoring showed limited compliance with a reunification plan requiring counseling, medication, support payments, and visits. The Nevada Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the evidence established failure of parental adjustment and unfitness under NRS 128.105, as the parents did not substantially correct the conditions leading to the child's removal despite state efforts, and termination was in the child's best interests. The court emphasized the mother's inconsistent engagement and the father's minimal involvement and ongoing issues.

family law

The case concerned Yvette Farmer, a white female sociology professor, who sued the University and Community College System of Nevada after it hired a black male professor at a higher salary under an unwritten minority bonus affirmative action policy aimed at addressing racial imbalances in faculty hiring. Farmer alleged violations of the Equal Pay Act for unequal pay for equal work, Title VII race and gender discrimination, and breach of her employment contract. A jury awarded her $40,000 in damages, but the Nevada Supreme Court reversed the judgment. The court held that the race-conscious policy did not violate Title VII because it remedied a manifest imbalance in a traditionally segregated job category without unnecessarily trampling the rights of others, and the pay differential was justified by qualifications and market factors.

civil rightslabor & employment

The case involved Kriseya J. Labastida, whose seven-week-old infant died from extensive injuries inflicted by the child's father, with whom she cohabited. Labastida was acquitted of first-degree murder and child abuse but convicted of second-degree murder and child neglect, resulting in a life sentence plus a consecutive twenty-year term. She appealed, arguing her convictions were invalid due to lack of knowledge of the abuse and errors in jury instructions. The Nevada Supreme Court affirmed the convictions, holding that Labastida received a fair trial and was properly found guilty under the applicable standards for second-degree murder based on implied malice.

criminal law

In Evans v. State, Vernell Ray Evans was convicted by a jury of burglary and four counts of first-degree murder arising from the 1992 shooting deaths of four victims in a Las Vegas apartment, and he received four death sentences along with a consecutive prison term for the burglary. On direct appeal, Evans challenged numerous aspects of the trial including jury instructions on reasonable doubt and mitigating circumstances, the admission of certain evidence and witness testimony, prosecutorial comments during the penalty phase, and the sufficiency of the aggravating circumstances supporting the death sentences. The Nevada Supreme Court affirmed the convictions and sentences in full, concluding that the evidence supported the aggravating factors, that no prejudicial errors occurred in the guilt or penalty phases, and that the death sentences were not the product of passion, prejudice, or arbitrariness under the mandatory review required by NRS 177.055.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved Michael Geiger's conviction for burglary after his fingerprint was found on a window screen pried off at the point of entry to a home from which money was stolen. Geiger argued that the evidence was insufficient to support the verdict and that the district court clerk's inadvertent reading of language from the information referencing his prior burglary conviction prejudiced the jury, despite the judge's admonition to disregard it. The Supreme Court of Nevada held that the fingerprint evidence, combined with testimony that Geiger had no permission to be at the home, was sufficient for a rational jury to find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The court further concluded that the judge's instruction cured any potential prejudice from the clerk's statement, and it affirmed the burglary conviction while upholding the habitual criminal adjudication and sentence.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved the State of Nevada seeking to terminate Cherrel Montgomery's parental rights to her young daughter Vanessa after repeated incidents of neglect tied to the mother's alcohol abuse, including leaving the child unsupervised and being intoxicated while responsible for her care. The district court granted termination, determining that the mother's condition was irremediable based on prior relapses and that it served the child's best interests given two years of instability and her need for a secure environment. The Nevada Supreme Court reversed the order, concluding that the district court lacked both the required jurisdictional grounds under state statutes and sufficient evidence of unfitness or failure to adjust, as the mother had substantially complied with a reunification plan involving counseling, treatment, and monitoring.

family law