Nevada Judiciary | Administrative Office | Law Library | State of Nevada | Contact

Monday, March 20, 2017 - Liberty High School - Henderson, NV - Silver/Tao/Gibbons

Potts vs. State
Liberty High School - Henderson, NV - 10:00 a.m. - Court of Appeals

Marshall (Prentice) vs. State
Liberty High School - Henderson, NV - 10:30 a.m. - Court of Appeals

Potts vs. State
Docket Number: 69962
Liberty High School - Henderson, NV - 10:00 a.m. - Court of Appeals

Appellant was convicted by a jury of larceny from the person. The victim has mental health issues. Appellant argues that the photo identification was improperly suggestive and that there was insufficient evidence to convict him because the victim’s testimony was contradictory and confusing. ISSUES: (1) Did the district court err by admitting into evidence the photo identification of appellant by the victim? (2) Was there sufficient evidence to convict appellant? (Disclaimer: This synopsis is intended to provide only general information about this case before the Court of Appeals. It is not intended to be all-inclusive or reflect all positions of the parties.)

Marshall (Prentice) vs. State
Docket Number: 68747
Liberty High School - Henderson, NV - 10:30 a.m. - Court of Appeals

This is an appeal from a judgment of conviction, pursuant to a guilty plea, of robbery with the use of a deadly weapon; grand larceny auto; two counts of conspiracy to commit robbery with the intent to promote, further or assist a criminal gang; robbery with the use of a deadly weapon with the intent to promote, further or assist a criminal gang; burglary while in the possession of a firearm with the intent to promote, further or assist a criminal gang; attempted robbery with the use of a deadly weapon with the intent to promote, further or assist a criminal gang; and murder with the use of a deadly weapon with the intent to promote, further or assist a criminal gang. ISSUES: (1) Did the district court err by denying appellant’s motion to suppress incriminating statements based on a custodial interrogation without being advised of his Miranda rights when he was initially interviewed in the hospital while receiving treatment for his wounds? (2) Was appellant’s confession involuntary and coerced? (3) Did the district court err by refusing to suppress appellant’s incriminating statements made after his initial interrogation as fruit of the poisonous tree? (Disclaimer: This synopsis is intended to provide only general information about this case before the Court of Appeals. It is not intended to be all-inclusive or reflect all positions of the parties.)