Entries tagged with “juveniles” from Harmfulerror

This morning the US Supreme Court issued a decision in Graham v. Florida.  The defendant was 16 years old when he was sentenced to life for a burglary offense.  Florida does not have a parole system, so he could not be released absent a grant of executive clemency.  The Court, in a 6-3 decision, holds that the sentence violates the 8th Amendment as cruel and unusual punishment.

The Court notes that although most states allow for a life-without sentence for juvenile offenders for some non-homicide offenses, only 129 juvenile offenders are serving such sentences, and of those 77 are in Florida.   The remaining 52 imprisonments are in 10 states and the federal system.  The Court relies upon the rarity of the sentence in finding that it is cruel and unusual, as well as the inadequacy of penological theory to justify the sentence.  It notes that a study's authors were not ably to obtain a definite tally for Nevada (or Utah and Virginia), but the Court's research shows that Nevada has five juvenile nonhomicide offenders serving life without parole sentences.  The Court also finds that nonhomicide crimes cannot be compared to murder in their severity and irrevocability.  A life sentence may be imposed, but the State must provide a meaningful opportunity for release.  The Court also notes that the United States is the only country that imposes this type of sentence.

The Court quotes former-Nevada Supreme Court Justice Springer in Naovarath v. State, 105 Nev. 525, 526, 779 P.2d 944 (1989): "[T]his sentence [of life without the possibility of parole] 'means denial of hope; it means that good behavior and character improvement are immaterial; it means whatever the future might hold in store for the mind and spirit of [the convict], he will remain in prison for the rest of his days.'"

The majority opinion is authored by Justice Kennedy and joined by justices Stevens, Ginsburg, Breyer and Sotomayor.  Justice Stevens filed a concurring opinion that was joined by justices Ginsburg and Sotomayor.  Justice Roberts filed an opinion concurring in the judgment.  Justice Thomas filed a dissenting opinion that was joined by Justice Scalia and in part by Justice Alito.  Justice Alito also filed a dissenting opinion.

The Court issued two other opinions today.  In United States v. Comstock, the Court in a 7-2 decision authored by Justice Breyer, Congress acted within its authority in enacting 18 USC 4248, which allows the civil commitment of mentally ill federal prisoners who are sexually dangerous. 

In Abbott v. Abbott, the Court holds that a parent has a right of custody under the Hague convention on child abduction that gives the parent authority to consent before the other parent can remove a child fromt he country where the child is living.

In Re: T. L, A Child,
Docket No. 53959
Carson City - 10:00 a.m. - Justices Cherry, Saitta and Gibbons

In this case, the State of Nevada is appealing a Washoe County district court decision not to certify a juvenile, who was seventeen years of age at the time of the alleged crime, as an adult.  The State filed a delinquency petition against the subject minor, T.L., charging him with battery with a deadly weapon.  T.L., who previously had been adjudicated as a delinquent child on a felony charge of maiming an animal, had been placed on probation on that charge and released in September of 2007, but fled and was not located until late January 2009.  He was served with the new delinquency petition the following month. The State then amended the petition to add another charge and sought to certify T.L. as an adult. The juvenile court determined that the certification motion was untimely under WDCR 33(1) and denied the motion on the merits.  The State now appeals.  ISSUES:  Did the juvenile court err in denying the State's motion for certification, which were based on T.L.'s personal traits, the allegations of serious and violent acts, and that T.L had posed a threat in the past?  Did the juvenile court err in determining that dismissal of the State's motion for certification was warranted due to its untimely filing in violation of due process and a local rule?

Manor Health Care Center, Inc. v. Monsour,
Docket No. 52796
Carson City - 10:30 a.m. - Justices Cherry, Saitta and Gibbons

This is an appeal from a Clark County district court order confirming an arbitration award and entering a final judgment on the award in an elder abuse and wrongful death action. Edward Monsour died while in the care of Manor Health Care Center (MHCC). His estate and heirs sued MHCC for negligence, wrongful death, and statutory violations mandating that the facility provide considerate and respectful care to a vulnerable, elderly person. The parties entered binding arbitration, and the arbitrator found for Monsour's estate and heirs on all causes of action except the wrongful death claim. The arbitrator awarded compensatory damages to Monsour's estate, damages for personal injury and the pain and suffering of Monsour and his heirs, damages for loss of companionship, society, comfort, consortium, and grief and sorrow for Monsour's heirs, and attorney fees. The total damages amounted to $754,431,32. Monsour's estate moved to confirm the arbitration award, but MHCC moved to modify or correct the award.  Senior Judge Stephen Huffaker, the arbitrator, declined to modify the award. MHCC then moved the district court to modify or correct, or vacate the award, but the district court denied MHCC's motion and confirmed the award.  MHCC now appeals.  ISSUES:  Did the district court err when it confirmed the arbitration award and denied MHCC's motions to modify, correct, or vacate the arbitration award?  Did the arbitrator erroneously award damages to parties not entitled to recover under applicable law and impermissibly doubled certain awards of damages and attorney fees? 

Tsai (Paul) v. Hsu (Ann), Docket No. 50549
Las Vegas (Regional Justice Center) - 10:00 a.m. - Justices Cherry, Saitta, and Gibbons

This case involves a 1996 settlement agreement in a divorce proceeding between Paul Tsai and Ann Hsu.  Part of the agreement provided that a parcel of land owned by the parties in Las Vegas was to be held in trust to pay for their children's educational expenses.  No trust documents were created at the time the settlement agreement was reached, but apparently the parties quitclaimed the property to their children.  After the divorce, the children lived with Hsu in Hong Kong where they attended private elementary and secondary schools, paid for by Hsu.  In 2007, the property was sold for a sizeable amount of money.  The parties now dispute the allocation of the proceeds from the sale of the property.  ISSUES:  Did the parties transfer their entire interest in the property to their children?  Was the trust meant to finance the children's private elementary and secondary school education when Tsai never consented to sending the children to private elementary and secondary schools?  Did the district court lack jurisdiction to make rulings regarding the trust? 

Salas (Miguel) v. State, Docket No. 51385
Las Vegas (Regional Justice Center) - 10:30 a.m. - Justices Cherry, Saitta, and Gibbons

In this appeal, issues are raised about the grand jury indictment of Miguel Salas, who was a juvenile at the time of an auto theft that led to a high speed chase and a head-on collision.  Salas was certified to stand trial as an adult following the incident in which he and Alberto Spindola broke into and stole an automobile in Las Vegas.  The pair attempted to evade capture by fleeing at high-speed from a police officer.  The chase ended in a head-on collision with another car.  Salas was arrested, certified as an adult, and charged with numerous felony violations.    The justice court, however, dismissed charges of robbery with the use of a deadly weapon and conspiracy to commit robbery for lack of probable cause, but bound over Salas to the district court on the remaining charges.  The State then convened a grand jury, which indicted Salas on the two previously dismissed charges.  Salas was found guilty at trial on all but three charges.  This appeal followed.  ISSUES:  Did the district court abuse its discretion in determining that the State provided Salas with reasonable notice of the grand jury proceedings?  Did the district court have jurisdiction to proceed on the grand jury indictment?  Did Salas demonstrate "exceptional circumstances" to show the district court abused its discretion in failing to remand his case to the juvenile court?  Did the State present sufficient evidence to convict Salas of robbery and conspiracy to commit robbery?

Callara v. Las Vegas Hilton, Docket No. 51645
Las Vegas (Regional Justice Center) - 11:30 a.m. - Justices Cherry, Saitta, and Gibbons

This is an appeal of a split verdict at trial in a personal injury case.  Roseann Callara slipped and fell in the parking/valet parking drop-off area of the Las Vegas Hilton after which two employees of Hilton moved her to a nearby bench.  Subsequently, Callara sued Hilton for neglecting to keep the area clean and for moving her after she fell.  At trial, a jury returned a verdict in favor of Callara on her claim that Hilton employees negligently moved her after she fell.  The jury, however, ruled  for Hilton on the claim of failing to keep the area clean.  This appeal followed.  ISSUES:  Did the district court abuse its discretion when it concluded that Hilton should not be held to admissions made pre-trial?  Did the district court abuse its discretion by refusing to submit the admissions to the jury as evidence?  Did the district court abuse its discretion by allowing previously undisclosed witness testimony, and by directly questioning that witness?  Did Hilton have an obligation to create records regarding when areas of its property had been cleaned and should a jury instruction have been given that the Hilton spoiled evidence when Hilton did not destroy any records, but instead never created the records that Callara sought? 

Cacho (Ashton) v. State, Docket No. 51647
Las Vegas (Regional Justice Center) - 1:30 p.m. - Justices Cherry, Saitta, and Gibbons

In this case, Ashton Cacho is appealing his 2008 conviction by a Clark County jury for one count each of open or gross lewdness and indecent exposure, and four counts of lewdness with a child under the age of 14.    ISSUES:  Are the convictions redundant?  Did the district court err in not conducting a competency hearing regarding the child victim?  Did the State withhold exculpatory evidence and/or engage in prosecutorial misconduct?  Did the State present sufficient evidence to support the jury's verdict? 

Gamble (Clarence) v. State, Docket No. 52521
Las Vegas (William S. Boyd School of Law) - 10:00 a.m. - Chief Justice Parraguirre, and Justices Hardesty and Pickering (Justice Douglas voluntarily recused himself from participation in this matter)

Numerous issues are raised in this appeal by Clarence Gamble, who was convicted of shooting and killing a woman with whom he was romantically involved.  At trial, Gamble claimed he acted in self-defense.  However, eyewitness testimony indicated otherwise.  Gamble was convicted of first-degree murder with the use of a deadly weapon and aggravated stalking.  Gamble now appeals the judgment of conviction.  ISSUES:  Did the district court err in refusing to dismiss the aggravated stalking charge?  Did the district court err in denying Gamble's objections to the State's use of peremptory challenges to excuse two prospective African-American jurors?  Did the district court err in instructions given to the jury?  Did the prosecutor commit misconduct warranting reversal of Gamble's convictions? 

Valley Health System v. Garcia (Waneira), Docket No. 50507 c/w 50509 and 50684
Las Vegas (William S. Boyd School of Law) - 11:00 a.m. - Justices Hardesty, Douglas, and Pickering

This is an appeal of a jury verdict in a medical malpractice case.  In 1995, Waneira Garcia was about 39 weeks pregnant when she arrived at Valley Hospital in Las Vegas complaining of potential complications with her pregnancy.  Her daughter was delivered via Caesarian section, and suffers from ongoing developmental delays that will likely require ongoing medical treatment.  Garcia attributed her baby's problems to the negligence of the hospital and filed a lawsuit alleging medical malpractice against her OB/GYN doctor, Joseph Watson, M.D., the hospital, and two of its employees, Mary Kathryn Watts and Madonna Sturgeon.  The district court entered a default judgment against Sturgeon for her failure to appear at the trial.  A jury found in favor of Dr. Watson, but determined that the hospital and its named employees were negligent and awarded Garcia damages and attorney fees.  This appeal followed.  ISSUES:  Did the district court err in entering a default judgment against Sturgeon for her failure to attend the trial?  Did the district court err in instructing the jury?  Did the district court abuse its discretion in awarding attorney fees to Garcia?

Alvarez v. Smith - Whether local law enforcement agencies may seize and retain custody indefinitely of personal property without judicial or administrative review of the lawfulness of the continued detention of the property. Argument scheduled for 10/14/09

Beard v. Kindler.  Under the adequate-state-ground doctrine, does a state procedural rule like Pennsylvania's fugitive waiver rule preclude federal habeas corpus review even though the state procedural rule is discretionary?Argument scheduled for 11/2/09.

Black v. United States - Whether the "honest services" clause of 18 U.S.C. § 1346 applies in cases where the jury did not find - nor did the district court instruct them that they had to find - that the defendants "reasonably contemplated identifiable economic harm," and if the defendants' reversal claim is preserved for review after they objected to the government's request for a special verdict.

Bloate v. United States -  Whether time granted at the request of a defendant to prepare pretrial motions qualifies as "delay resulting from other proceedings concerning the defendant" and is thus excludable from the time within which trial must commence under the Speedy Trial Act of 1974, 18 U.S.C. 3161 et seq. Argument scheduled for 10/6/09.

Briscoe v. Virginia - If a state allows a prosecutor to introduce a certificate of a forensic laboratory analysis, without presenting the testimony of the analyst who prepared the certificate, does the state avoid violating the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment by providing that the accused has a right to call the analyst as his own witness?

Florida v. Powell - Must a suspect be expressly advised to his right to counsel during questioning and if so, does the failure to provide this express advice vitiate Miranda v. Arizona?  

Graham v. Florida - Whether the Eighth Amendment's ban on cruel and unusual punishments prohibits the imprisonment of a juvenile for life without the possibility of parole as punishment for the juvenile's commission of non-homicide.Argument scheduled for 11/9/09

Hemi Group v. New York City - Whether city government meets the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act standing requirement that a plaintiff be directly injured in its "business or property" by alleging non commercial injury resulting from non payment of taxes by non litigant third parties. Argument scheduled for 11/3/09

Johnson v. United States - Whether under the federal Armed Career Criminal Act a prior state conviction for battery is in all cases a "violent felony," even when the state held that offense does not have as an element the use or threatened use of physical force.  Argument scheduled for 10/6/09  

Maryland v. Shatzer - Whether Edwards v. Arizona (1981), which bars police from initiating questioning with criminal suspects who have invoked their right to counsel, applies to an interrogation that takes place nearly three years later. Argument scheduled for 10/5/09 

McDaniel v. Brown - Nevada case - Whether, on federal habeas review, the evidence underlying the defendant's conviction for sexual assault was clearly insufficient under Jackson v. Virginia (1979).  Argument taken off calendar.

Padilla v. Kentucky - Does the Sixth Amendment's guarantee of effective assistance of counsel require a criminal defense attorney to advise a non-citizen client that pleading guilty to an aggravated felony will trigger mandatory, automatic deportation, and if that misadvice about deportation induces a guilty plea, can that misadvice amount to ineffective assistance of counsel and warrant setting aside the guilty plea? Argument scheduled for 10/13/09  

Pottawattamie County v. McGhee - Whether a prosecutor may be subjected to a civil trial and potential damages for a wrongful conviction and incarceration where the prosecutor allegedly violated a criminal defendant's "substantive due process" rights by procuring false testimony during the criminal investigation, and then introduced that same testimony against the criminal defendant at trial.  Argument scheduled for 11/4/09

Smith v. Spisak - Did the Sixth Circuit contravene AEDPA by improperly extending Mills v. Maryland [re: mitigation jury instructions in a capital case]? Argument scheduled for 10/13/09

Sullivan v. Florida - Does imposition of a life without parole sentence on a thirteen-year-old for a non-homicide violate the prohibition on cruel and unusual punishments under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments, where the freakishly rare imposition of such a sentence reflects a national consensus on the reduced criminal culpability of children?  Argument scheduled for 11/9/09

United States v. Comstock - Whether Congress had the constitutional authority to enact 18 U.S.C. 4248, which authorizes court-ordered civil commitment by the federal government of (1) "sexually dangerous" persons who are already in the custody of the Bureau of Prisons, but who are coming to the end of their federal prison sentences, and (2) "sexually dangerous" persons who are in the custody of the Attorney General because they have been found mentally incompetent to stand trial.

United States v. Stevens - Is 18 U.S.C. 48, on depictions of animal cruelty, facially invalid under the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment? Argument scheduled for 10/6/09

Weyhrauch v. United States - Whether, to convict a state official for depriving the public of its right to the defendant's honest services through the non-disclosure of material information, in violation of the mail-fraud statute (18 U.S.C. Sec. 1341 and 1346), the government must prove that the defendant violated a disclosure duty imposed by state law.

Wood v. Allen - Whether the state court's conclusion-that during the sentencing phase of a capital case the defense attorney's failure to present the defendant's impaired mental functioning did not constitute ineffective counsel-was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts and whether the circuit court erred in its application of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA) to the review of the state court decision.  Argument scheduled for 11/4/09

The Senate Judiciary Committee approved the nomination of Daniel Bogden for Nevada's U.S. Attorney position.

Las Vegas Municipal Court George Assad has issued a letter of apology, pursuant to an order in June 2008 by the Nevada Supreme Court, to a woman who was detained until her boyfriend showed up in court to take of his unpaid traffic tickets.

The Ninth Circuit issued an opinion today in US v. Juvenile Male, in which it finds that part of the federal Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act is unconstitutional as applied to former juvenile offenders.

 

via Sentencing Law and Policy, The Sentencing Project issued a new report yesterday: No Exit: The Expanding Use of Life Sentences in America,  Nevada is featured throughout the report, and not in a good way.  Among its other findings:

In five states--Alabama, California, Massachusetts, Nevada, and New York--at least 1 in 6 people in prison are serving a life sentence.  In Nevada, 16.4 percent of the prison population is service a sentence of life or life without the possibility of parole -- that is 2,217 people.  450 people, or 3.3% of the prison population, are serving an LWOP sentence. 

Juveniles serve life sentences in nearly every state, but more than 50% of the national population is located in five states: California (2,623), Texas (422), Pennsylvania (345), Florida (338), and Nevada (322).  Given our relative population to these other states, this is shocking.  69 of these juvenile offenders are serving LWOP sentences.

Looking at overall life sentences, the report notes that in four states, more than 10% of the life population were juveniles at the time of their offense. These states are Nevada (14.5%), Nebraska (13.2%), Maryland (11.6%), and Arizona (10.4%).  Nevada leads the country in this shameful statistic.

Racial, ethnic and gender data are also provided.

 

The US Supreme Court granted certiorari in four cases today:

Sullivan v. Florida - constitutionality of life prison terms without a chance for parole for juveniles who commit crimes other than murder in their teen years.

Graham v. Florida - same

Hemi Group LLC v. City of New York - Whether a city government meets the RICO standing requirement that a plaintiff be directly injured in its "business or property" by alleging non-commercial injury from non payment of taxes by non-litigating third parties.

Shady Grove Orthopedic Ass'n v. Allstate Insurance - Can a state legislature prohibit federal courts from using the class action device for state law claims?

Scotusblog provides links to the petitions, briefs in opposition and replies.

Via Sentencing Law & Policy, a California appellate court has found a sentence of life without the possibility of parole for a juvenile, who was 14 years old at the time of his offense of kidnapping for ransom, to be unconstitutional.  The opinion is available here.

In re: William M. & In re: Marques B. - these are consolidated appeals from juvenile court orders certifying the appellants for criminal proceedings as adults on charges involving the use of a firearm.  The Court summarizes its holding:

" These appeals center on Nevada's presumptive certification statute, which consists of NRS 62B.390(2) and (3).  These provisions create a rebuttable presumption that juveniles who are over 13 years of age and charged with certain enumerated offenses fall outside of the jurisdiction of the juvenile court and must therefore be transferred to the district court for adult criminal proceedings.  In particular, we examine NRS 62B.390(3)(b)'s rebuttal requirements in light of the right against self-incrimination guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution.  Under NRS 62B.390(3)(b), to rebut the presumption of certification, the juvenile court must find clear and convincing evidence that the juvenile's criminal actions were substantially influenced by substance abuse or emotional or behavioral problems that may be appropriately treated within the jurisdiction of the juvenile court.  Appellants argue that NRS 62B.390(3)(b) requires juveniles to admit to the charged, but unproven, criminal actions, which implicates the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination and the constitutionality of the presumptive certification provisions.

            Thus in resolving these appeals, we initially determine whether the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination is available to juveniles in certification proceedings.  We conclude that the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination is available to juveniles in certification proceedings under the United States Supreme Court's decision in In re Gault. Necessarily, we overrule that part of this court's decision in Marvin v. State that improperly concluded that the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination did not apply to juveniles in waiver proceedings.

            Given the Fifth Amendment's applicability to juvenile certification proceedings, we next address whether NRS 62B.390(3)(b)'s rebuttal terms impinge on the right against self-incrimination by requiring the juvenile to either accede to the criminal court's jurisdiction despite having a substance abuse or emotional or behavioral problem, or to admit guilt, even though that admission could later be used against him in juvenile or adult court proceedings.  We hold that, by requiring a juvenile to admit to the charged criminal conduct in order to overcome the presumption of adult certification, the presumptive certification statute, NRS 62B.390(2) and (3), violates the juvenile's Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination."

Congratulations on the great victory to Kristina Wildeveld & Amicus ACLU of Nevada, National Juvenile Defender Center and Juvenile Law Center.