Thursday - May 21, 2105 - Las Vegas

 

Frazier vs. Drake

Las Vegas – 10:00 a.m. – Gibbons/Tao/Silver

 

Merlino (Carrie) vs. State

Las Vegas – 11:00 a.m. – Gibbons/Tao/Silver

 

Frazier vs. Drake

Docket No. 61775

Las Vegas – 10:00 a.m. – Gibbons/Tao/Silver

This is an appeal from a district court judgment on a jury verdict in a personal injury action, and from post-judgment orders granting attorney fees and costs and denying a motion for a new trial.  Appellants were both injured in a motor vehicle accident when their car was rear-ended by respondent Patrick Drake, who failed to observe a red light.  At the time, Drake was driving a semi-truck owned by his employer, respondent MS Concrete. At the trial, evidence was introduced that bees flew into the truck cabin, distracting Drake and causing him to see neither appellants nor their vehicle.  Based in part on this evidence, and over appellants’ objections, the district court instructed the jury regarding sudden emergencies.  The jury ultimately found in favor of respondents, and respondents then moved for attorney fees and costs as the prevailing party and because appellants had previously rejected their offers of judgment.  The district court granted respondents all of their attorney fees and some of their costs, and also denied appellants’ post-judgment motion for a new trial.  ISSUES: (1) whether the district court improperly instructed the jury on sudden emergencies; (2) whether the jury failed to follow the instructions of the district court in reaching its verdict; (3) whether the district court improperly denied appellants’ motion for a new trial; (4) whether the district court abuse its discretion in granting respondents’ motion for attorney fees; and (5) whether the district court abused its discretion in the amount of costs it awarded for respondents’ expert witness fees.  (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.)

 

 

Merlino (Carrie) vs. State

Docket No. 65273

Las Vegas – 11:00 a.m. – Gibbons/Tao/Silver

 

Appeal from a judgment of conviction, pursuant to a jury verdict, for burglary, conspiracy and grand larceny.  Appellant challenges only one burglary conviction, which was based on appellant’s alleged entry into an EZ-Pawn store, via a sliding tray that was extended to her at the store’s drive-through window, with the intent to commit the crime of obtaining money under false pretenses.  Appellant contends that the conviction cannot stand because she did not “enter” the pawn shop by using the tray.  The State contends that the sliding tray is part of the building and, therefore, appellant entered the store.  ISSUE: Whether the element of “entering” for purposes of committing a burglary can be established when appellant merely placed items in a sliding tray that was extended to her at the store’s drive-thru window. (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.)