Entries tagged with “jury instructions” from Harmfulerror

McConnell v. State - the Court, sitting en banc, issues a per curiam decision affirming an order of the district court dismissing McConnell's post-conviction petition for a writ of habeas corpus in a capital case.  The Court concludes, in addressing an issue of first impression in Nevada, that challenges to Nevada's lethal injection procedures are not properly raised in a state court habeas petition.  The Court also finds that McConnell's guilty plea was knowingly and voluntarily entered and he did not have a right to effective assistance of stand-by counsel.  The Court next find that appellate counsel was not ineffective for failing to challenge a penalty phase instruction on the ground that it did not specify that the aggravating factors had to outweigh the mitigating factors beyond a reasonable doubt before it could impose death.  The Court next finds that appellate counsel was not ineffective for failing to challenge the Court's mandatory review of death sentences on the ground that there are no standards for the review; for failing to argue that it was prejudicial to have his trial and appeal reviewed by elected judges; for failing to challenge the death qualification process for jurors; and for failing to adequately address the aggravating circumstances issue presented in McConnell I (felony murder aggravators cannot be used if felony murder is the basis for the judgment).

The good news is that the Court rejects the State's argument that McConnell I was wrongly decided and should be overturned.  (Footnote 15).

Pearson v. Callahan - qualified immunity for police officers.  Unanimous opinion authored by Justice Alito.  The Court overrules the procedure for determining whether officers are immune from a civil rights action that was established in Saucier v. Katz.  It explains the standards following stare decisis vs. revisiting precedent.  It also finds that the Saucier procedure is often appropriate, but is no longer mandatory in all cases.  The Court also finds that the search at issue, which involved "consent once removed" and an informant, was not cleraly established as unconstitutional at the time of entry, so the officers are entitled to qualified immunity.

Fitzgerald v. Barnstable School Committee - Title IX action re: gender discrimination.  Unanimous opinion authored by Justice Alito.  The Court holds that Title IX does not preclude a 1983 civil rights action alleging unconstitutional gender discrimination in schools.

Locke v. Karass - public sector unions and non-member agency fees for litigation expenses.  Justice Breyer authored the majority opinion.  Justice Alito authored a concurring opinion which was joined by Chief Justice and Justice Scalia.  The Court holds that the First Amendment permits a local union to charge nonmembers for national litigation expenses in certain situations.

Waddington v. Sarausad - habeas relief and ambiguous jury instruction.  Justice Thomas authored the majority opinion.  Justice Souter authored a dissenting opinion which was joined by Justices Stevens and Ginsburg.  The Court holds that the Ninth Circuit erred in granting habeas relief because a Washington court's decision that a jury instruction defining accomplice liability was not ambiguous was not an objectively unreasonable decision.  The Court also finds that the Ninth Circuit erred in concluding that there was a reasonable likelihood that the prosecutor's closing argument caused the jury to apply the instruction in a way that relieved the State of its burden to prove every element beyond a reasonable doubt. 

Spears v. United States - Per curiam opinion concerning the federal sentencing guidelines and the crack/powder cocaine disparity.

The Nevada Supreme Court has made available a new batch of unpublished decisions.  They may not be cited as precedent.  A few are of interest:

Lewis v. State - the Court finds plain error based upon a jury instruction concerning the value of a vehicle.  The instruction erroneously instructed the jury to determine the value of the vehicle at the time the vehicle was taken, rather than at the time it was possessed.  The result is a reduction from a class B felony to a class C and the Court vacates an order for $5,200 in restitution.

Johnson v. State - the merits of the issues presented are not all that interesting, but it is worth noting that the defendant was convicted of three counts of second-degree murder based upon the shotgun killings of three people inside an apartment -- proof once again that the Byford instructions on first-degree murder reflect a meaningful change from the Kazalyn instructions.

Bolden v. State - the Court reverses an order of the district court dismissing a post-conviction petition for a writ of habeas corpus.  The district court had dismissed the petition because it was not served on the Attorney General and warden.  The Court finds that the defects were curable and the petition should not have been dismissed on those grounds.

Ruffin v. State - the Court reverses an order of the district court dismissing a post-conviction petition for a writ of habeas corpus.  The district court denied the petition because the defendant did not attach trial transcripts to his petition.  The Court found that there is no statute mandating that transcripts be attached and it would be unreasonable and wasteful for an indigent defendant to provide copies of transcripts that already exist in the district court and prosecutor's files.  The procedural history is interesting in that the district court dismissed without prejudice a 1996 petition on this ground, the defendant filed two additional post-conviction petitions, the second and third petitions were dismissed as untimely, but the Court reached the merits of the first petition based upon the appeal from the third order.

Valdominos v. State - the Court reverses a judgment of conviction for two counts of sexual assault after finding prosecutorial misconduct and error in refusing to give a defense proposed jury instruction on the legal effect of multiple sexual acts.  The Court finds that the prosecutor committed misconduct by making remarks which belittled or disparaged the defendant or his case and by improperly attacking the defendant's character.  Although the defense did not object at trial, the Court finds plain error in the prosecutors statement that insinuated the defendant had raped another woman and was a serial rapist.  Justice Maupin dissented -- he found that the State committed misconudct but believed the conviction was supported by overwhelming evidence.

The United States Supreme Court issued one decision today.  In Hedgpeth v. Pulido, the Court issued a per curiam decision, with 3 justices dissenting as to the remand, in which it held that a conviction based on jury instructions containing more than one theory of guilt, where one theory is invalid, is to be judged under the harmless error standard.  The Ninth Circuit had found the error to be structural error.

"[A] reviewing court finding such error should ask whether the flaw in the instructions 'had a substantial and injurious effect or influence in determing the jury's verdict.'"

The Court's ruling is consistent with a recent opinion by the Nevada Supreme Court, Cortinas v. State, which addressed the same issue.

Valdez v. State - The facts of this capital case are highly unusual in that when the jury returned its verdict of guilt on the charge of first-degree murder, the foreperson announced that they had also reached a decision as to whether Valdez should receive the death penalty.  In other words, the jury decided the penalty before the penalty hearing.  The Nevada Supreme Court, in a 5-2 conviction reverses the judgment.  The opinion is authored by Justice Hardesty.  Justices Gibbons and Parraguirre dissented.

The Court first concludes that the district court (Judge Bonaventure) erred by failing to instruct the jury in writing, after the close of argument, that it was not to deliberate as to Valdez's possible penalty until after the sentencing hearing.

The Court next finds that the jury acted improperly by deliberating the penalty while deciding the issue of guilt and that the district court abused its discretion in denying a mistrial based upon this misconduct.

The Court next clarifies the proper harmless-error analysis for prosecutorial misconduct of constitutional and nonconstitutional dimenstion.  The Court finds that the prosecutors engaged in several instances of misconduct throughout the trial and that this misconduct contributed to the cumulative error that warrants reversal of the judgment of conviction.

Disclosure - I am counsel for Valdez.

The Court issued a third opinion today, Boucher v. Shaw.  It involves a certified question from the Ninth Circuit under NRAP 5 concerning whether under NRS 608 individual managers can be held liable as employers for unpaid wages.