Entries tagged with “felony murder” from Harmfulerror

Ramirez v. State - "we conclude that the jury was not completely and accurately instructed as to the necessary elements of second-degree felony murder and that the improper instruction affected appellant Felicia Ramirez's substantial rights.  Accordingly, we reverse the district court's judgment of conviction and remand this matter for a new trial."  The jury instructions failed to include the immediate-and-direct-causal-relationship element of second degree felony murder.  The Court finds plain error based upon the instruction, the State's failure to specify the felony under which it sought a second-degree felony murder conviction, and conflicting evidence as to who inflicted the victim's moral wounds.

Reno Newspapers v. Sheriff - The Court grants a writ of mandamus compelling a sheriff, under the Public Records Act, to provide records on the identity of those holding a concealed firearms permit and non-confidential information concerning post-permit records of investigation of a permit holder, or suspension or revocation of a permit holder's permit.  The case involved a newspaper's request to obtain records concerning the Governor's concealed weapons permits.

Renown Health v. Vanderford - "In this appeal, we consider whether hospitals owe an absolute nondelegable duty to provide competent medical care to their emergency room patients through independent contractor doctors.  Although the parties settled in this matter, appellant Renown Health, Inc., reserved its right to appeal the district court's interlocutory order granting partial summary judgment based on the imposition of a nondelegable duty.  A portion of the settlement remains contingent upon this appeal.  We conclude that no such absolute duty exists under Nevada law, nor are we at this time willing to judicially create one.  Accordingly, we reverse the district court's grant of partial summary judgment insomuch as the district court concluded that hospitals have such a nondelegable duty.  We hold that Renown may be liable for patient injuries under the ostensible agency doctrine that we previously recognized in Schlotfeldt v. Charter Hospital of Las Vegas, 112 Nev. 42, 910 P.2d 271 (1996)."

Strickland v. Waymire - "These consolidated appeals require us to interpret Article 2, Section 9 of the Nevada Constitution, which subjects every public officer in Nevada to recall by special election upon the filing of a qualifying recall petition signed by "not less than twenty-five percent (25%) of the number" of registered voters "who actually voted in the state or in the county, district, or municipality [that the officer] represents, at the election in which [the officer] was elected."  Nev. Const. art. 2, § 9.

            The question presented is whose signature counts toward the 25 percent needed to qualify a recall petition.  Is it any registered voter, as the district court held?  Or must the signatures come from those registered voters who in fact--"actually"--voted at the election in which the public officer was elected, as the Secretary of State and the Attorney General have concluded?  Reasonable policy arguments exist on both sides.  But Article 2, Section 9's text and relevant history convince us that the latter reading is more faithful to the provision's test and the evident understanding of the citizens who enacted it.  We therefore reverse."

Bahena v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. -  "In this appeal we consider whether the district court abused its discretion when it struck a defendant's answer, as to liability only, as a  discovery sanction pursuant to NRCP 37(b)(2)(C) and NRCP 37(d).  We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion by imposing non-case concluding sanctions and by not holding a full evidentiary hearing.  We further conclude that the district court exercised its inherent equitable power and properly applied the factors set forth in Young v. Johnny Ribeiro Building, 106 Nev. 88, 92-93, 787 P.2d 777, 780 (1990).  We therefore affirm the judgment of the district court."

Huesner (Allen) v. State, Docket No. 52023
Las Vegas- 10:00 a.m. - Justices Hardesty, Douglas, and Pickering.

The evidence presented at trial demonstrated that after Allen Heusner had been served with a temporary protective order, he broke into the home he shared with his wife, beat to death the man with whom his wife had been having an intimate relationship, and set a blanket on fire.  Heusner was convicted of first-degree murder, first-degree arson, and burglary while in possession of a deadly weapon.  Heusner raises numerous issues on appeal.    ISSUES:  Did the district court err in allowing the State to pursue a theory of felony murder with the predicate felony being burglary based upon entry with an intent to murder?  Did the district court abuse its discretion by admitting prior bad act evidence? Did the district court abuse its discretion when it instructed the jury that it did not have to be unanimous on the theory supporting the first-degree murder conviction? Did the admission of evidence of Heusner's post-arrest silence violate his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination? 

Love (Sherri) v. State, Docket No. 52403
Las Vegas- 10:30 a.m. - Justices Hardesty, Douglas, and Pickering

Sherri Love is appealing her conviction for murdering her 7-year-old daughter, attempting to murder her 8-year-old son, and abusing and neglecting her son by killing his sister in front of him and stabbing him in the hand.  This incident occurred in Clark County several days after Love left a detoxification program, where she was being treated for alcoholism and drug addiction.  ISSUES: Did the district court properly instruct the jury?

Polk (Levenral) v. State, Docket No. 52733
Las Vegas- 10:30 a.m. - Justices Hardesty, Douglas, and Pickering

This appeal challenges witness testimony, Nevada's deadly weapon enhancement, the district court's ability to dismiss an injured juror prior to consulting with the parties, and whether a juror who lost consciousness during trial should have been dismissed.   Levenral Polk is appealing his second conviction for murdering a long-time friend, by shooting him from a car.  Polk was initially convicted of first-degree murder, but was granted a new trial by a federal court.  At his second trial in Clark County, Polk was convicted of second-degree murder with the use of a deadly weapon and discharging a firearm out of a motor vehicle. ISSUES: Did the district court improperly permit a witness to offer hearsay evidence about forensic test results when that witness did not perform the forensic testing? Is the deadly weapon enhancement statute unconstitutional in light of the United States Supreme Court's decision in District of Columbia v. Heller?  Did the district court abuse its discretion by dismissing an injured juror prior to consulting the parties?  Did the district court err when it failed to dismiss a juror who lost consciousness during trial?

New unpublished decisions have been posted by the Nevada Supreme Court.  SCR 123 states that these unpublished orders shall not be regarded as precedent and shall not be cited as legal authority.

State v. Spina - the Court denies the State's appeal from an order of the district court dismissing a charge of first-degree murder with use of a deadly weapon.  The State had argued that the defendant could be charged with felony murder based upon an allegation of burglary with "ex-felon in possession of a firearm" as the predicate felony for burglary.  The Court agreed with the district court that "burglary cannot be predicates solely on entry into a structure or vehicle by an ex-felon in possession of a firearm."  The Court also agreed with the district court that "ex-felon in possession of a firearm" is not inherently dangerous.  "Thus, there is no justification for the imputation of implied malice under the felony-murder rule.  Accordingly, we conclude that it would be impermissible to allow the State to bootstrap 'ex-felon in possession of a firearm' into burglary in order to sustain a conviction for murder in the first-degree under the felony-murder rule."

* There appears to be no case authority in Nevada directly addressing this issue.  I'm puzzled by the Court's decision not to publish this decision as an opinion. 

Ledezma v. State - the Court rejects the defendant's argument that NRS 453.3405, which allows for a lesser sentence if the defendant offers substantial assistance to law enforcement, violates his equal protection rights because persons, like him, who are subject to an INS immigration hold cannot be released from custody and participate in "buys" for police officers.

Mejia v. State - the Court finds that the district court abused its discretion in failing to appoint counsel for post-conviction proceedings in a case in which the defendant was convicted of sexual assault on a minor and lewdness with a minor and was serving life sentences.

 Winston v. State - the Court finds a jury instruction on implied malice as it relates to attempted murder to be incorrect, but finds the error to be harmless.

State v. Harte - The Court, sitting en banc, affirms an order of a district court partially granting a post-conviction petition for a writ of habeas corpus in a death penalty case.  The Court rejects the State's argument that McConnell v. State (felony murder cannot be used as the sole basis for liability for first degree murder and also used as an aggravating circumstance) was wrongly decided.  The Court also rejects the State's argument that there should be a new trial, rather than just a new penalty hearing, in capital cases in which the sole aggravating circumstance is found invalid under McConnell.  The majority opinion is authored by Justice Maupin and joined by Justices Gibbons, Douglas and Cherry.  Justices Hardesy, Parraguirre and Saitta concur but express a belief that there are three fundamental flaws in McConnell's analytical framework.

Hernandez v. State - The Court, sitting en banc, affirms a district court order denying a post-conviction petition for a writ of habeas corpus in a capital case.  In doing so, the Court declines to extend McConnell v. State to bar the dual use of torture as a theory of first-degree murder and as an aggravating circumstance to support a death sentence.  The Court, however, finds the aggravating circumstance of burglary to be invalid under McConnell, reweighs the aggravating and mitigating evidence and affirms the death sentence.  The Court rejects other post-conviction claims.  Justice Cherry dissents in part after finding that the defendant should have received a new penalty hearing because the jury may have imposed a sentence of less than death without the invalid aggravating circumstance.

Cortinas v. State - The Court (Justices Hardesty, Parraguirre & Douglas) holds that traditional harmless-error review applies when a general verdict based on multiple theories of liability may rest on a legally invalid alternative theory.  The Court also reaffirms its prior holdings that robbery is a general intent offense.

Rubio v. State - Counsel's affirmative misrepresentations of immigration consequences is an exception to the general rule that deportation is a collateral consequence that does not affect the voluntariness of a guilty plea.  Misrepresentations by a court interpreter, however, are not an exception to the general rule.  The Court also rules that the district court abused its discretion in failing to hold an evidentiary hearing on claims of ineffective assistance of counsel.

Opinions in civil cases: 

Rivero v. Rivero -

Cook v. Sunrise Hospital & Medical Center -

Five Star Capital Crop. v. Ruby -

Estate of LoMastro v. American Family Ins. -

Village League v. State, Bd. of Equalization -

Mesagate HOA v. City of Fernley -

Lehrer McGovern Bovis v. Bullock Insulation