Tuesday, June 29, 2021-Las Vegas-Full Court

CHAPARRO (OSBALDO) VS. STATE
Docket Number: 81352
Las Vegas - 9:30 A.M. - En Banc

This is an appeal from a judgment of conviction, pursuant to a jury verdict, of sexual assault, battery with the intent to commit a sexual assault, and open or gross lewdness. Appellant Osbaldo Chaparro was arrested after grabbing and groping victim L.L. outside Harrah’s casino in Reno. Various security cameras captured the assault, and Chaparro does not dispute his identity on the video. However, L.L. alleged that Chaparro also digitally penetrated her, which he denied. The district court permitted testimony regarding Chaparro’s previous conviction for battery with the intent to commit a sexual assault to be given at trial. However, the defense counsel was not permitted to question potential jurors on how the prior sexual offense would affect their impartiality. The jury convicted Chaparro of all charges. Due to the Covid-19 crisis, Chaparro’s sentencing hearing was held remotely over simultaneous audio-visual transmission. Chaparro appeals.

ISSUES:

Specifically, Chaparro alleges that: (1) the district court improperly limited voir dire by not permitting defense counsel to ask jurors about whether a prior sexual offense conviction would necessarily mean Chaparro should be convicted in this case; (2) the district court abused its discretion by admitting testimony regarding the prior battery with intent to commit sexual assault; (3) the district court abused its discretion in admitting forensic DNA expert testimony that the forensic test results were inconclusive; (4) cumulative error warrants reversal; and (5) Chaparro’s due process rights were violated when the sentencing hearing was held remotely.

Disclaimer:

This synopsis is intended to provide only general information about this case before the Nevada Supreme Court. It is not intended to be all-inclusive or reflect all positions of the parties. To access the documents that have been filed in this matter, type the docket number into the court’s case search page: http://caseinfo.nvsupremecourt.us/public/caseSearch.do

LATTIMORE (KENYA) VS. STATE
Docket Number: 81343
Las Vegas - 10:00 A.M. - En Banc

This is an appeal from a judgment of conviction, pursuant to a jury verdict, of battery with the use of a deadly weapon resulting in substantial bodily harm constituting domestic violence, gross misdemeanor conspiracy to prevent or dissuade a witness from testifying or producing evidence, and two counts of gross misdemeanor preventing or dissuading a witness from testifying or producing evidence. Appellant Kenya Lattimore was arrested and charged after assaulting his stepfather, Carl Jones, with a baseball bat. Carl and Mary Jones (Lattimore’s mother) did not show up to a preliminary hearing. Lattimore was charged with the witness dissuasion charges with respect to that preliminary hearing. Lattimore unsuccessfully sought to introduce evidence of his low IQ at trial to show both that he reasonably believed he was acting in self-defense or defense of others during the battery, and also that he did not have the specific intent for the witness dissuasion charges. Lattimore was convicted by a jury of all charges. Due to the Covid-19 crisis, Lattimore’s sentencing hearing was held remotely over simultaneous audio-visual transmission. Lattimore appeals.

ISSUES:

. On appeal, this court considers whether: (1) the district court erred in precluding Lattimore from presenting evidence of his low IQ; (2) the district court improperly admitted jail call evidence; (3) the admission of certain jail calls constituted evidence of uncharged bad act evidence presented without a limiting instruction; (4) the district court impermissibly allowed a lay witness to instruct the jury on the law; (5) the State committed prosecutorial misconduct; (6) cumulative error warrants reversal; and (7) Lattimore’s constitutional rights were violated when the sentencing hearing was held remotely.

Disclaimer:

This synopsis is intended to provide only general information about this case before the Nevada Supreme Court. It is not intended to be all-inclusive or reflect all positions of the parties. To access the documents that have been filed in this matter, type the docket number into the court’s case search page: http://caseinfo.nvsupremecourt.us/public/caseSearch.do

STATE VS. WATSON, III (JOHN) (DEATH PENALTY-PC)
Docket Number: 78780
Las Vegas - 10:30 A.M. - En Banc

The State alleged that John Watson murdered his wife Evey and dismembered her body in a Las Vegas hotel room. Watson was convicted of first-degree murder with the use of a deadly weapon and first-degree kidnapping and sentenced to death. This court affirmed the judgment of conviction and death sentence on direct appeal. Watson then challenged his judgment of conviction and sentence in a postconviction petition for a writ of habeas corpus and the district court granted relief.

ISSUES:

In this appeal from the district court order granting relief, the State argues that the district court erred in concluding that Watson’s counsel was ineffective for conceding his guilt during guilt phase closing arguments.

Disclaimer:

This synopsis is intended to provide only general information about this case before the Nevada Supreme Court. It is not intended to be all-inclusive or reflect all positions of the parties. To access the documents that have been filed in this matter, type the docket number into the court’s case search page: http://caseinfo.nvsupremecourt.us/public/caseSearch.do

U.S. BANK N.A. VS. THUNDER PROPERTIES, INC. (NRAP 5)
Docket Number: 81129
Las Vegas - 11:30 A.M. - En Banc

Pursuant to NRAP 5, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit certified questions of law to this court. The first question is, when a lienholder whose lien arises from a mortgage for the purchase of a property brings a claim seeking a declaratory judgment that the lien was not extinguished by a subsequent foreclosure sale of the property, is that claim exempt from statute of limitations under City of Fernley v. Nevada Department of Taxation, 132 Nev. 32, 366 P.3d 699 (2016)? The second question is, if such claim is subject to a statute of limitations, which statute of limitations applies, and what causes the limitations period to begin to run? Appellant U.S. Bank argues that no statute of limitations applies because it is only seeking prospective relief, which is a declaration that its lien survived the HOA’s foreclosure sale.

ISSUES:

Respondent Thunder Properties, Inc., argues that the HOA’s foreclosure of its superpriority lien extinguished the first deed of trust, and U.S. Bank is time-barred from asserting that the foreclosure sale was void.

Disclaimer:

This synopsis is intended to provide only general information about this case before the Nevada Supreme Court. It is not intended to be all-inclusive or reflect all positions of the parties. To access the documents that have been filed in this matter, type the docket number into the court’s case search page: http://caseinfo.nvsupremecourt.us/public/caseSearch.do