Thursday, November 30, 2017 - Las Vegas - Silver/Tao/Gibbons

Bowser (Terrence) vs. State
Docket Number: 71516
Las Vegas - 10:00 A.M. - Court of Appeals

This is an appeal under NRAP 4(c) from a judgment of conviction, pursuant to a jury verdict, of voluntary manslaughter with use of a deadly weapon; discharging firearm out of a motor vehicle; and discharging firearm into structure, vehicle, aircraft or watercraft. In 2005, Terrence Bowser was driving a car in North Las Vegas with a co-defendant when the co-defendant shot at a vehicle in the next lane with a shotgun. At Bowser’s 2015 retrial, he was found guilty of three of six counts. He appeals, alleging nine errors at trial and sentencing.

ISSUES:

(1) Whether the district court erred by denying a challenge to the State’s peremptory strikes against three jurors; (2) whether the district court erred by denying a defense request to redact appellant’s statement to remove reference to his co-defendant and hearsay statements; (3) whether the district court erred by denying a defense request to remove a sleeping juror; (4) whether the district court erred by refusing to allow into evidence a written toxicology report showing methamphetamine use by the victim, which supported appellant’s theory of defense; (5) whether the district court erred by declining to give appellant’s proffered instruction regarding “mere presence” and addressing a note from the jury on the issue of whether appellant could be guilty of shooting a firearm into a car by association without appellant and his attorney being present; and (6) whether the district court erred by denying a defense motion for mistrial due to prosecutorial misconduct during closing arguments.

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.

Symeonidis vs. AMC, LLC
Docket Number: 71072
Las Vegas - 10:30 A.M. - Court of Appeals

Appellant Andre Symeonidis was a tenant at respondent Lantana Apartments (Lantana) in Las Vegas. Unknown assailants beat and robbed Symeonidis as he walked from his apartment to his car. Symeonidis sued Lantana for negligent security. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Lantana.

ISSUES:

(1) Whether the district court erroneously applied the traditional view of foreseeability even though the Nevada Supreme Court expressly rejected that view in favor of the modern, totality-of-the-circumstances rule; (2) whether the district court incorrectly found that the assault on appellant was unforeseeable despite the significant history of crime at Lantana; and (3) whether the district court incorrectly held that appellant was required to have an expert witness to testify as to security at the complex.

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.

Wynn Las Vegas, LLC vs. Tofani
Docket Number: 69936
Las Vegas - 11:30 A.M. - Court of Appeals

Cristiano Augusto Tofani was provided $800,000 in casino credit through markers at the Wynn Las Vegas casino and lost all of the money. Soon after, Wynn began its collection efforts and ultimately sued Mr. Tofani when he did not repay the $800,000 in casino markers. A jury found for Wynn and awarded it $450,000. The district court then awarded Wynn $455,607.95 in attorney fees, costs, and interest on the $450,000 award. On appeal, Wynn alleges that the law on contract ratification entitles it to the full $800,000 in casino markers Mr. Tofani executed in Wynn’s favor. Mr. Tofani cross-appeals that he should have been allowed to assert his gambling addiction as a defense and that Wynn is not entitled to its attorney fees, costs, and interest.

ISSUES:

(1) Is Wynn entitled to summary judgment on its contract claims despite Tofani's intoxication defense because Tofani ratified the obligation to repay the debt after he was no longer intoxicated? (2) Did the district court err in denying Wynn's proposed jury instruction regarding intoxication defense to contract formation and later ratifying the contract when sober? (3) Did the district court err in applying NRS 463.368(6) regarding gambling addiction and defenses to gambling debt? (4) Is Wynn equitably estopped from asserting NRS 463.368(6) because Wynn encouraged or enabled Tofani's gambling addiction? (5) Did the district court err in awarding attorney fees and costs in favor of Wynn? (6) Did Tofani properly appeal the award of fees and costs?

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.

Gardner vs. State
Docket Number: 69382
Las Vegas - 1:30 P.M. - Court of Appeals

Appellant Karlton Gardner is an inmate who filed a civil rights complaint against the Nevada Department of Corrections and several prison officials. After the parties had filed several pleadings, respondents moved to dismiss Gardner’s action, in part, for failure to hold an early case conference within the timeframe required by NRCP 16.1. The district court granted the motion.

ISSUES:

(1) Whether the district court abused its discretion by failing to consider the factors guiding the exercise of that discretion under NRCP 16.1, and (2) whether compelling and extraordinary circumstances warranted an extension of NRCP 16.1(e)’s deadline for an early case conference.

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.

Sayedzada (Sayedbashe) vs. State
Docket Number: 71731
Las Vegas - 2:00 P.M. - Court of Appeals

This is an appeal from a jury verdict and judgment of conviction of 13 counts of possession of a credit or debit card without the cardholder's consent.

ISSUES:

(1) Did the district court err in rejecting appellant's for-cause challenge to some of the jurors? (2) Did the jury pool represent a fair cross-section of the community? (3) Did the district court commit evidentiary errors by admitting prior bad acts, evidence of the purse theft, and evidence of photo of appellant in handcuffs? (4) Was there sufficient evidence to support some of the convictions because there was no evidence of intent to defraud? (5) Was there prosecutorial misconduct warranting reversal? (6) 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.