Thursday, April 20, 2017 - Carson City - Silver/Tao/Gibbons
PEDROLI RANCHES PARTNERSHIP VS. PEDROLI
Docket Number: 67469
Carson City - 10:00 a.m. - Court of Appeals
This case arises out of a family dispute over the ownership of the family ranching partnership. Appellant Barbara Paganini, on behalf of Pedroli Ranches, alleged that Respondent Honorine Pedroli conspired with a longtime ranch hand to rustle approximately 53 cattle. The district court granted judgment as a matter of law on several of appellants’ claims after their case-in-chief. The jury found in favor of respondents on the remaining claims. Both sides appeal.
ISSUES:
(1) Whether the district court erred in granting judgment as a matter of law on three counts, (2) whether the jury disregarded its instructions when rendering the verdicts, (3) whether the district court should have granted judgment as a matter of law on respondent’s counterclaims, (4) whether the district court issued an incorrect jury instruction, and (5) whether the district court abused its discretion by excluding a Bureau of Land Management document.
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.
GUEVARA-PONTIFES (BRANDON) VS. STATE
Docket Number: 70435
Carson City - 10:30 a.m. - Court of Appeals
This is an appeal from a judgment of conviction, pursuant to a jury verdict, of three offenses: (1) first-degree kidnapping, (2) battery with the intent to commit sexual assault, and (3) sexual assault. At trial, the State contended that appellant Brandon Guevara-Pontifes dragged the victim to his vehicle, drove her to his apartment, forced her to have sexual intercourse with him, and bit her so that she would release her legs and allow him to reinsert his penis into her vagina. Guevara-Pontifes countered that the victim voluntarily came to his apartment with him, they had consensual sexual intercourse, and he bit her because the two of them enjoyed having rough sex. The victim provided the police with a description of the incidents in question, which formed the basis of the State’s trial theory. However, at trial the victim recanted many of her prior allegations against Guevara-Pontifes, and instead testified that the sexual intercourse was consensual. The State then offered into evidence certain prior inconsistent statements she had made to police. Further, the State elicited testimony from a clinical psychologist that was intended to establish that the victim falsely recanted her testimony because she was a victim of domestic abuse.
ISSUES:
(1) Did the police elicit inculpatory statements from Guevara-Pontifes in violation of his Fifth Amendment rights? (2) Did the district court err by permitting the victim to translate statements Guevara-Pontifes made before trial? (3) Did the State improperly attempt to impeach the victim by asking her whether she recalled making certain prior statements? (4) Did the district court erroneously admit portions of a clinical psychologist’s testimony? (5) Did the State undermine Guevara-Ponitfes’ presumption of innocence by revealing his pre-trial detainee status to the jury? (6) Did the State present sufficient evidence to sustain the convictions? (7) Did the State commit prosecutorial misconduct during closing argument and rebuttal? (8) Did the district court abuse its discretion in sentencing Guevara-Pontifes in response to allegedly improper statements the State made at the sentencing hearing? (9) Does cumulative error warrant reversal?
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.