March 25, 2024, Oral Arguments
Hayes vs. Watson
Carson City– 10:30 a.m. – Court of Appeals
State vs. Meyer (Lauren)
Carson City– 11:30 a.m. – Court of Appeals
Vietti (Nicholas) vs. State
Carson City– 1:30 p.m. – Court of Appeals
Hayes vs. Watson
Docket No. 85087-COA
Carson City– 10:30 a.m. – Court of Appeals
Appellant Britt Hayes, a trauma nurse, sued respondents John Michael Watson, M.D., and Gomez, Kozar, McElreath and Smith Professional Corporation d/b/a Western Surgical Group for the alleged negligence and assault and battery by Dr. Watson, alleging that he dropped a backboard onto her foot causing injury. The jury found in favor of respondents and the district court denied Hayes’ new trial motion. Hayes raises five issues on appeal: (1) whether the district court committed a reversable error when it limited Hayes’ use of Dr. Watson’s video deposition; (2) whether the district court abused its discretion by allowing a NRCP 30(b)(6) witness to testify at trial about the standard procedures for removing backboards from trauma patients; (3) whether the district court abused its discretion in denying a motion for new trial when considering the collateral source rule; (4) whether the district court abused its discretion in not granting a new trial when the jury verdict was palpably contrary to the evidence regarding negligence presented during trial; and (5) whether the district court abused its discretion in not ordering a new trial because the totality of errors resulted in cumulative error.
State vs. Meyer (Lauren)
Docket No. 86371-COA
Carson City– 11:30 a.m. – Court of Appeals
Respondent Lauren Michelle Meyer was arrested and charged with two counts of driving under the influence following a car accident, but maintained throughout the proceedings below that she was not the driver of the vehicle responsible for the collision. After finding that the vehicle involved in the collision, including any potential remaining evidence within it, was no longer available for inspection, the district court dismissed the criminal charges against Meyer. In doing so, the district court found that a law enforcement officer’s use of an expletive to describe Meyer as captured on the officer’s body camera established that law enforcement conducted its investigation in bad faith. The State of Nevada now appeals, arguing that the district court abused its discretion by finding that the vehicle and any evidence inside was material to the charges brought, and that any action by the responding officers constituted bad faith such that the investigation was improper.
Vietti (Nicholas) vs. State
Docket No. 86911-COA
Carson City– 1:30 p.m. – Court of Appeals
Appellant Nicholas Jay Barash Vietti was convicted of two counts of intimidating a public officer using an immediate threat of physical force in violation of NRS 199.300. Vietti now raises four arguments on appeal, including (1) whether the jury was properly instructed on Vietti’s subjective intent to communicate a threat as required under Counterman v. Colorado, __ U.S. __, 143 S. Ct. 2106 (2023); (2) whether a search of Vietti’s phone should have been suppressed under NRS 179.075(1) because the search took more than 10 days to complete; (3) whether the district court erroneously compelled Vietti to undergo a psychological examination with a State expert, without the presence of counsel, under Mitchell v. State, 124 Nev. 807, 192 P.3d 721 (2008); and (4) whether the State committed prosecutorial misconduct.