Interesting unpublished decisions

| | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

There's not much to discuss concerning today's published opinion, but a few unpublished decisions are interesting.vietcong 2 reloaded keygen

 vietcong 2 reloaded keygen

Dolores-Alvarez v. State - The non-English speaking defendant represented himself at trial.  A Faretta canvass was conducted by the district court, but it did not include a warning that there could be negative consequences to relying on an interpreter in front of a jury.  The Nevada Supreme Court finds that such a warning was not required.  The Court also finds that reversal was not warranted based upon a claim of misconduct, though the Court did find the prosecutor's arguments to be improper:vietcong 2 reloaded keygen

"We observe that some of the prosecutor's statements were problematic -- especially the comment about the victim's motives for recanting her story and the comment that the victim 'deserved to be believed.'  Nonetheless, due to the overwhelming evidence of Alvarez's guilt, the prosecutor's remarks were not prejudicial.  Accrodingly, the prosecutor's statements do not rise to the level of plain error and Alvarez is not entitled to relief on this claim."vietcong 2 reloaded keygen

State v. Stotler - The Court dismisses the State's appeal from an order granting the defendant's motion to suppress evidence.  Although the State filed a notice of appeal with the clerk of the district court, it failed to file a second notice of appeal in the Nevada Supreme Court within 5 judicial days of the district court's ruling, as required by NRS 177.015(2).  The Court rejects the State's request to excuse the mistake based upon ignorance of the law and notes that the statutory requirements to invoke the Court's jurisdiction cannot be excused or waived.  The same issue was presented, with the same result, in State v. Knight.vietcong 2 reloaded keygen

City of Las Vegas v. Eighth Judicial District Court - A municipal court imposed a civil penalty for the act of selling an alcoholic beverage without a valid license and acquitted the defendant of the criminal charge.  The City challenged this ruling in district court.  The district court found that the Double Jeopardy Clause prevented the district court from granting the City's requested relief.  The Nevada Supreme Court rejected the City's petition for a writ of mandamus, but reminded the district court and municipal court that  the violation of the city code provision at issue defined a criminal offense.vietcong 2 reloaded keygen

Reiger v. State - The Court considers whether reversal is required based upon disparagement of the defense by the district court judge (Judge Glass).  The Court considers the issue despite the absence of objection at trial based upon Oade v. State, 114 Nev. 619, 622, 960 P.2d 336, 338 (1998).  It reviewed the legal standard and then noted the following:vietcong 2 reloaded keygen

"Here, the district court mocked defense counsel's impachement of Kelly Souther, an eyewitness, regarding his ability to perceive the Crown Royal bag exit Reiger's driver's side window as Souther was sitting in his car.  Attempting to clarify Souther's line of sight during cross-examination, defense counsel asked Souther: 'your eyes are outside your [car] window, right?'  Without any prompting, the district court interjected: 'I don't know that his eyes were literally outside his window, Mr. Speed.'  The literal absurdity of defense counsel's question, however, would not have been detected by a rational juror had the court not gratuitously remarked upon it.  Moreover, in this one-eyewitness case, the court's sarcasm was especially unwelcome since it came during Souther's impeachment, a critical point in the evidence for the defense given that Reiger's defense theory depended almost exclusively on raising doubts regarding Souther's perception of events."vietcong 2 reloaded keygen

The Court also noted other remarks which evidenced "some irritation with defense counsel" and noted that the record confirmed that the district court directed commands to sit down disproportionately at the defense.  The Court found that the district court's remarks raised concerns under Nevada Code of Judicial Conduct Canon 3B, which requires judges to be "patient, dignified and courteous" when interacting  with counsel and litigants.  The Court nonetheless found that reversal was not warranted as the district court did not fine defense counsel and did not comment on the merits of the defense in front of the jury.  The Court also found that the district court's exasperated tone was animated out of concern for expediting the trial rather than true animus for the defense and the evidence against the defendant was strong.  "Thus, although inappropriate at times, we conclude that the district court's conduct did not constitute plain error."vietcong 2 reloaded keygen


0 TrackBacks

Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Interesting unpublished decisions.vietcong 2 reloaded keygen

TrackBack URL for this entry: 2 reloaded keygen

Leave a comment

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by JoNell published on November 6, 2008 8:50 AM.vietcong 2 reloaded keygen

Nevada Supreme Court issues 1 opinion was the previous entry in this blog.vietcong 2 reloaded keygen

Nevada Supreme Court oral argument calendar: Nov. 12-14 is the next entry in this blog.vietcong 2 reloaded keygen

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.vietcong 2 reloaded keygen

Powered by Movable Type 4.0