Clarence Clifton Young

This case involved Larry Hiibel, who was detained by a sheriff's deputy investigating a report of possible domestic violence and refused eleven requests to identify himself, resulting in his arrest and conviction for resisting a public officer. The Nevada Supreme Court considered whether NRS 171.123(3), which requires a person detained on reasonable suspicion to identify himself, violates the Fourth Amendment. The court denied Hiibel's petition, concluding that the statute does not violate the Fourth Amendment because it reasonably balances individual privacy interests against the need to protect officers and the public during investigatory stops.

criminal lawcivil rights

In this personal injury case, Joseph Canterino sued the Mirage Casino-Hotel after being beaten and robbed on the premises, and a jury awarded him over $5.5 million in damages. The district court deemed the award excessive, issued a conditional remittitur reducing it to $1.5 million, and ordered a new trial after Canterino rejected the reduction. On appeal, the Nevada Supreme Court initially limited the new trial to damages but, on rehearing, modified its ruling to require a new trial on both liability and damages. The court reasoned that an ex parte jury instruction—directing only jurors who found liability to determine damages—was inherently prejudicial, as jurors may reconsider liability during damages deliberations, depriving the parties of full jury participation on all issues.

torts & liabilityprocedure

This case involved companies providing referrals for erotic dance entertainment that hired workers to distribute commercial leaflets on sidewalks owned by the Mirage and Treasure Island casino-hotels along the Las Vegas Strip. The casinos sued for trespass and obtained a preliminary injunction barring the handbilling, which the companies appealed on grounds that a pedestrian easement and public use made the sidewalks traditional public forums protected by the First Amendment. The Nevada Supreme Court affirmed the injunction, concluding that the sidewalks remained private property that the owners could control and that excluding commercial handbillers did not violate state or federal constitutional free-speech guarantees. The court reasoned that the sidewalks' private ownership and the commercial nature of the speech distinguished them from public thoroughfares subject to full constitutional protections.

free speechproperty

This case concerns a petition filed by Mineral County and the Walker Lake Working Group against Nevada state agencies and officials, seeking writs of prohibition and mandamus to halt additional surface or groundwater withdrawals from the Walker River system that could reduce flows into Walker Lake and to compel enforcement of public trust obligations in water appropriations. The petitioners also sought review of prior water allocation decisions affecting the basin, which spans parts of California and Nevada and supports agricultural, municipal, and ecological uses. The Nevada Supreme Court denied the petitions, holding that substantially similar litigation was already pending in a more appropriate forum, making the extraordinary writ relief inappropriate.

environmentpropertyprocedure

The case involved Gregory Neal Leonard, who was charged with the first-degree murder and robbery of Tony Antee, with the State seeking the death penalty. After two mistrials, Leonard's third jury trial resulted in convictions for first-degree murder and robbery, along with a death sentence based on two aggravating circumstances: the murder occurring during a robbery and Leonard's prior murder conviction. The Nevada Supreme Court affirmed the conviction and death sentence, determining that sufficient evidence supported the jury's findings and that no errors in the proceedings warranted reversal.

criminal law

The case concerned a post-divorce child custody dispute in which the father, who held primary physical custody of the couple's two children, relocated with them from Nevada to Idaho after the mother's verbal consent but without her written consent as required by statute, and was later accused of briefly leaving one child home alone while the child recovered from pneumonia. The mother moved to modify custody, and the district court granted primary physical custody to her, finding a material change in circumstances, substantial enhancement of the children's welfare, poor judgment by the father in the relocation and the incident of leaving the child unsupervised, and that the mother would better facilitate visitation. On appeal, the Nevada Supreme Court reviewed the district court's factual findings for substantial evidence and its custody decision for abuse of discretion under the Murphy v. Murphy standard and NRS 125C.200, ultimately concluding that the record did not support the modification.

family law

The case involved a defamation lawsuit brought by mayoral candidate Steve Miller against his opponent Jan Jones after Jones's campaign distributed a flier that included a summary stating Miller had been accused of giving false information about cocaine found in a car 'Miller was driving.' Miller claimed the statement was false because he had driven the car before the substance was discovered, and he argued the flier omitted exculpatory context from the original article. The district court granted summary judgment to Jones on the defamation, IIED, and NIED claims, finding the statement was not defamatory and lacked actual malice. On appeal, the Nevada Supreme Court reversed, concluding there were triable issues of fact as to whether the wording was materially false and defamatory and whether Jones acted with actual malice under the New York Times v. Sullivan standard. The court also addressed procedural issues regarding the unresolved counterclaim and certification of the judgment.

electionsfree speechtorts & liability

In Roever v. State, the appellant was convicted at retrial of first-degree murder of her boyfriend and possession of marijuana after the State introduced extensive testimony from multiple witnesses about her alleged prior bad acts, violent statements, and character traits such as lying, theft, and inflicting harm during blackouts. The Nevada Supreme Court reversed the convictions and remanded for a new trial. The court held that the evidence was improperly admitted because the defendant's videotaped interview statements did not place her character in issue so as to permit rebuttal under NRS 48.045(1)(a), the prior acts were not shown to be relevant or proven by clear and convincing evidence as required for admission under NRS 48.045(2), and the testimony violated rules limiting character evidence and opinion testimony on credibility under NRS 50.085 and related provisions.

criminal lawprocedure

This case consolidated multiple appeals involving efforts by states and individuals to enforce pre-1987 child support orders and collect arrears. The district courts had limited recovery to payments due within the six years before the actions were filed, based on a prior interpretation of McKellar v. McKellar. The Nevada Supreme Court clarified that NRS 125B.050(3), which eliminated the statute of limitations for child support collections effective July 1, 1987, permits recovery of arrears accruing from July 1, 1981, onward, because the prior six-year limitation period had not yet expired for those installments when the change took effect. The court reversed the district courts' orders and remanded for recalculation of the collectible amounts.

family lawprocedure

The case concerned whether Michael Domingues's death sentences for murders committed at age sixteen were illegal under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which bans capital punishment for crimes committed by those under eighteen. The Nevada Supreme Court affirmed the district court's denial of Domingues's motion to correct the sentence. It reasoned that the United States Senate had ratified the ICCPR with an express reservation preserving the right to impose the death penalty on juvenile offenders, and that Nevada statute NRS 176.025 expressly permits capital punishment for defendants sixteen or older at the time of the offense.

criminal law

The case involved Frederick Lee Steese's conviction for the 1992 murder of Gerard Soules, who was found stabbed to death in a Las Vegas trailer. Steese, who had been staying with Soules, was arrested after fleeing the state and appealed on grounds including the denial of a new trial motion based on newly discovered evidence such as missing jeans and an affidavit from a witness (Rick Rock) about phone calls and statements regarding the number of stab wounds, as well as alleged prosecutorial misconduct. The Nevada Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, reasoning that the missing evidence was not material, there was no showing of bad faith by police in failing to locate it, conflicting affidavits did not warrant a new evidentiary hearing, and other claims were either unpreserved or lacked merit under applicable standards.

criminal lawprocedure

Genaro A. Origel-Candido was convicted of discharging a firearm into a house after a gang-related shooting at a party and received an additional sentence enhancement for committing the offense in furtherance of criminal gang activity. The Nevada Supreme Court affirmed the underlying conviction, concluding that eyewitness identifications provided sufficient evidence for a rational jury to find beyond a reasonable doubt that Origel-Candido was the shooter. The court reversed the gang enhancement, however, because the prosecution presented no evidence that the Maravilla gang had as one of its common activities the commission of felonies other than the charged offense, as required by the enhancement statute. The majority reasoned that due process requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt of every element necessary for the enhancement.

criminal law

The case concerns Alvaro Calambro's appeal of a death sentence imposed by a three-judge panel for the 1994 murder of Keith Christopher during a robbery at a Reno U-Haul store, after he had already received a separate death sentence for murdering another victim the same night. Calambro had pleaded guilty and was also convicted of twenty-eight felonies in California arising from related crimes, including a gun store robbery and hostage standoff. The Nevada Supreme Court affirmed the death penalty, concluding that the sentencing panel properly found four categories of aggravating circumstances under NRS 200.033, including the California convictions (which qualified because they existed before sentencing), commission during a robbery, depravity of mind and mutilation, and random commission without motive. These aggravators outweighed the sole mitigator of Calambro's lack of prior criminal history, and the court rejected challenges to the timing and application of the statutory factors.

criminal law

The case involved Avram Nika, who was convicted of first-degree murder after his car broke down on Interstate 80 near Reno; witnesses placed him near the scene where Edward Smith's body was later found, and Nika was seen with Smith's BMW. At issue on appeal was the application of the statutory aggravating circumstance that the murder was committed at random and without apparent motive, which can support a death sentence. The court held that the evidence presented by the State, including possible robbery-related motives, precluded the jury from finding beyond a reasonable doubt that the killing was apparently motiveless, and therefore that aggravating factor could not be used. The opinion emphasized that the absence of a proven motive does not equate to affirmative proof of no apparent motive.

criminal law

The case concerned Michael Joseph Silva's appeal from his convictions for robbery and murder arising from the 1992 stabbing death of a bartender at the Wagon Wheel Bar. Silva challenged the district court's denial of his motions to suppress three taped statements he made to police, arguing that officers improperly continued questioning after he referenced wanting a lawyer and that one statement occurred before Miranda warnings were given. He also contended that the prosecutor committed misconduct by urging the jury to draw adverse inferences from accomplice Brian Loehr's refusal to testify at trial, for which Loehr was held in contempt seventeen times. The Nevada Supreme Court affirmed the convictions, holding that Silva's initial statements were voluntary and non-custodial, that he validly waived his rights before the final statement, and that any error from the prosecutor's closing argument was harmless given the other evidence of guilt.

criminal lawprocedure

In Jaeger v. State, the Nevada Supreme Court reviewed the revocation of probation for a defendant originally convicted of grand larceny who had been placed on probation with conditions including drug testing, community service, and counseling. After multiple violation reports alleging methamphetamine use, incomplete community service, and other issues, the district court revoked probation following hearings where the defendant admitted some violations but challenged procedural aspects such as a quashed subpoena, the absence of lab analysts as witnesses, and consideration of community service without prior notice. The court affirmed the revocation, holding that due process requirements were met, the defendant had no right to confront the lab technicians under the circumstances, and the district court properly considered all probation conditions in its decision. A dissent argued that lack of notice on community service and denial of confrontation rights violated due process.

criminal lawprocedure

The case was an appeal from a district court order terminating Marla Cooley's parental rights to her young daughter Christina after the Division of Child and Family Services took custody. The Nevada Supreme Court affirmed the termination, concluding that both jurisdictional and dispositional grounds under state law were met. The court relied on evidence showing the mother's repeated failure to maintain a safe living environment, comply with case plans and service contracts for parenting and homemaking skills, provide consistent physical or emotional care, or secure stable housing and income, all of which supported findings of neglect and inability to meet the child's needs.

family law

The case involved Richard Tanksley, who was charged with first-degree arson after setting fire to his mattress while incarcerated in the Carson City jail awaiting trial on extortion charges. Tanksley sought to represent himself at the arson trial, but the district court denied the request after observing his disruptive conduct during self-representation in the prior extortion case and after multiple appointed attorneys had withdrawn due to his non-cooperation. He was convicted of arson, adjudicated a habitual criminal based on prior convictions, and sentenced to life with parole eligibility. On appeal, the Nevada Supreme Court affirmed, holding that a defendant's right to self-representation under Faretta may be denied when the request is made to disrupt proceedings or when the defendant has demonstrated an unwillingness to follow courtroom rules, and that the habitual criminal adjudication was a proper exercise of discretion given Tanksley's record. The court rejected Tanksley's challenges to both the denial of self-representation and the sentencing enhancement.

criminal lawprocedure

In this Nevada Supreme Court case, the court addressed a petition for rehearing after previously reversing a conviction because police had conducted a warrantless search of the defendant's parked, unoccupied vehicle, violating his rights. The state argued that the statutory 60-minute limit on detentions under NRS 171.123(4) was too short to allow time to obtain a search warrant, including via telephonic means under NRS 179.045, and sought judicial flexibility to extend it. The court denied rehearing, holding that the statute's language clearly and unambiguously caps detentions at 60 minutes as a per se unreasonable limit beyond that, reflecting legislative intent that courts cannot alter even if inconvenient; any change must come from the legislature, while noting technological advances facilitate quicker warrants. A concurrence agreed with denial on the facts presented, and a dissent favored more flexibility and reconsideration of the underlying suppression issue.

criminal lawprocedure

In Statz v. State, the defendant pleaded guilty to murder and larceny under a plea agreement in which the state stipulated to a sentence of life imprisonment with the possibility of parole for the murder charge, to run concurrently with the larceny sentence. At sentencing, the prosecutor called the victim's father to testify and made statements about the crime and the defendant's culpability. The Nevada Supreme Court held that these actions breached the plea agreement because the state had not expressly reserved the right to present facts or argument at sentencing. The court therefore vacated the sentences and remanded for resentencing before a different judge.

criminal lawprocedure