« Judicial Ethics Opinion Issued | Main | Weekend news »

Nevada Supreme Court issues 4 opinions

The Nevada Supreme Court issued four opinions yesterday.

Knipes v. State - The Court holds that hearings to determine the admissibility of juror questions must be conducted on the record. The failure to do so, however, is nonconstitutional trial error and is subject to harmless error review under NRS 178.598. In reaching this conclusion, the Court notes the "growing intolerance for off-the-record rulings generally" and also notes the concerns of ensuring meaningful appellate review and facilitating the effecient administration of justice. In addition to finding that district courts must conduct Flores hearings on the record, the Court also finds that a district court abuses its discretion if it allows juror questions to be asked without providing counsel an opportunity to object to the questions outside the presence of the jury.

Davidson v. State - "In this appeal, we consider whether the district court can change a jury's verdict from not guilty to guilty for a criminal charge based on a purported clerical error after the jury has been discharged. We also address a clerical error in the judgment of conviction that precludes habitual criminal sentencing on one of the battery convictions.
Regarding the verdict, we conclude that the Double Jeopardy Clause prohibits the district court from changing the jury's verdict from not guilty to guilty for a criminal charge after the jury has been discharged, even if the change is only to correct a purported clerical error. Therefore, the district court in this case erred by changing the verdict for the robbery charge at issue from not guilty to guilty. Consequently, we reverse one of the robbery convictions.
Regarding the judgment and sentence for battery, we conclude that the judgment of conviction erroneously treats one of the battery convictions (count four) as a felony when the jury returned a finding of guilt for a misdemeanor on that count. As a result, the district court erred in imposing a habitual criminal sentence for that count because NRS 207.010 authorizes a habitual criminal sentencing enhancement for convictions of crimes involving fraud or intent to defraud, of petit larceny, or of a felony. We therefore remand for the district court to amend the judgment of conviction to show that count four is a misdemeanor and to impose a lawful sentence for that count."

Cox v. Dist. Ct. - judicial sales of real property, collateral attacks and temporary restraining orders.

M.C. Multi-Family Dev. v. Crestdale Assocs. - intangible property, such as a contractor's license, may be the subject of a claim in tort for conversion.

Post a comment

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)