Number of published opinions: 61 (there were 121 published opinions last year)
Civil: 38
Family: 3
Bar: 1
Judicial Discipline: 2
Certified from another court: 1
Number of published opinion in criminal cases: 16
pretrial - 4
direct appeal - 9
post-conviction - 2
juvenile - 1
proper person criminal cases - 0
death penalty - 2
criminal cases in which the court found error, but found it to be harmless - 2
death penalty cases in which the court found harmless error - 0
Criminal cases resolved in the State's favor - 9
Criminal cases resolved in the Defendant's favor - 7
En Banc published decisions in criminal cases - 10
State's Favor - 4
Defendant's Favor - 6
Panel published decisions in criminal cases - 6
Parraguirre, Hardesty, Saitta - 3
State's Favor - 2
Defendant's Favor - 1
Gibbons, Douglas, Cherry - 2
State's Favor - 2
Defendant's Favor - 0
Maupin, Gibbons, Hardesty - 1
State's Favor - 1
Defendant's Favor - 0
Trial judge (criminal cases only)
Bonaventure
affirmed - 2
Elliott
affirmed - 1
Glass
affirmed - 1
reversed - 2
Leavitt
reversed - 1
McGroarty
affirmed - 1
Memeo (Elko)
affirmed - 1
Mosley
affirmed - 2
reversed - 1
Saitta
reversed - 2
Vega
reversed - 1
Voy
affirmed -1
*** Note, some decisions resulted in affirmances in part and reversals in part. The determination of whether the decision was favorable to the defendant or the State was a subjective determination of the author. It is also important to note that the great majority of the decisions by the Nevada Supreme Court are unpublished. These statistics address only published decisions.
Highlights (and lowlights)
In Hidalgo v. Eighth Judicial District Court (Mosley), the Court granted a pretrial petition for a writ of mandamus and held that the State's notice of intent to seek the death penalty must be dismissed because (1) solicitation for murder was not not a felony involving the use or threat of violence to the person of another within the eaning of aggravating circumstances statute; and (2) the State's notices as to the monetary gain aggravating circumstance were insufficient because it was not sufficientally specific as to the State's theory of liability under the aggravator.
In Wilson v. State, the found that the defendant's double jeopardy rights were violated when the district court increased the defendant's sentence after his conviction had been partially vacated on appeal. The sentencing court may not increase the term for a count upon remand and may not run previously concurrent sentences consecutive, even if the total sentence at the new senetencing hearing is less than the original sentence.
In Nelson v. State, 170 P.3d 517 (2007), the Court held that the term "endangers" in the failure to stop statute is not unconstitutionally vague. It also held that the limited use of leg bracelets during the first day of jury selection was harmless error; that a defendant is not entitled to 8 peremptory challenges if habitual offender cases; and that jury instructions on aiding and abetting general intent offenses were proper.
In Dewey v. State, 169 P.3d 1149 (2007), the Court held that the the assertion of the Fifth Amendment right to remain silent under Miranda v. Arizona is not, by itself, sufficient to also invoke the right to counsel that Miranda also established.
In Ryan v. Eighth Judicial District Court (Glass), 168 P.3d 703 (2007), the Court held that the district court abused its discretion when it refusedto allow a defendant's counsel of choice to appear on her behalf. TheCourt ordered the district court to canvass the defendant and her co-defendant as to their waiver of the right to conflict-free representation.
In Nay v. State, 167 P.3d 430 (2007), the Court held that the district court abused its discretion by refusing to instruct the jury that a robbery committed as an afterthought to a murder could not support a felony-murder conviction.
In State v. Ruscetta, 163 P.3d 451 (2007), the Court held that the proper test in cases involving consensual vehicular searches is one that examines the totality of the circumstances for objective reasonableness.
In Gallegos v. State, 163 P.3d 456 (2007), the Court held that the statute prohibiting unlawful possession of a firearm was unconstitutionally vague because it failed to define the term "fugitive from justice."
In Rose v. State, 163 P.3d 408 (2007), the Court held that there was sufficient evidence to support a conviction for 20 counts of sexual assault against a minor. The Court found prosecutorial misconduct but also found that it did not amount of plain error, thus emphasizing the need to object to misconduct during trial.
In Schuster v. Eighth Judicial District Court (Mosley), 160 P.3d 873 (2007), the Court held that the State is not required to instruct a grand jury on the concept of self defense.
In Johnson v. State, 159 P.3d 1096 (2007), the Court held that a defendant may be convicted of attempting to lure a child under NRS 201.560 when the child is actually an undercover law enforcement officer.
In Byford v. State, 156 P.3d 691 (2007), the Court held that the district court and State acted improperly by issuing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and an Order, following remand by the Supreme Court, which were prepared by the State and signed by the judge without notice to the defendant, without an opportunity to be heard, and without guidance by the district court as to the findings to be entered.
In Hightower v. State, 154 P.3d 639 (2007), the Court held that the district court erred in refusing to allow an incarcerated co-defendant to change out of her jail clothing before testifying on behalf of the defendant, but the Court found that the error was harmless.
In State v. A.L., 153 P.3d 32 (2007), the Cour held that the State has a right to appeal from an order of the district court denying the State's petition for certification, that the juvenile's right to a speedy trial in the deliquency proceeding is not violated as a result, and that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the State's motion for certification in this case.
In O'Neill v. State, 153 P.3d 38 (2007), the Court held that Nevada's habitual criminal statute does not violate Apprendi.
In Austin v. State, 151 P.3d 60 (2007), the Court held that a social worker was qualified to conduct a psychosexual evaluation.