January 23, 2024, Oral Arguments
Chadwick (Joey) vs. State
Las Vegas William S. Boyd School of Law – 10:00 a.m. – Court of Appeals
Judd (Kim) vs. State
Las Vegas William S. Boyd School of Law – 10:30 a.m. – Court of Appeals
Chadwick (Joey) vs. State
Docket No. 86161-COA
Las Vegas William S. Boyd School of Law – 10:00 a.m. – Court of Appeals
Joey Terral Chadwick appeals from a judgment of conviction, pursuant to a jury verdict, of leaving the scene of an accident involving personal injury. Prior to trial, the district court admitted evidence of Chadwick’s intoxication as motive to flee and for impeachment. During the jury trial, a witness testified that Chadwick was in a gang and that after the accident, Chadwick threatened her. The district court also admitted a 9-1-1 call placed by the victim’s family following the accident. Chadwick was ultimately sentenced to 6-20 years in prison. Chadwick raises six issues on appeal and contends that the district court erred in (1) admitting evidence of his intoxication and drunk driving, (2) admitting evidence of his gang affiliation and threat to a witness without a Petrocelli hearing or limiting jury instruction, (3) admitting the 9-1-1 call, and (4) imposing an excessive and grossly disproportionate sentence. Chadwick also argues that (5) there was insufficient evidence to convict him, and (6) cumulative error warrants reversal.
Judd (Kim) vs. State
Docket No. 85734-COA
Las Vegas William S. Boyd School of Law – 10:30 a.m. – Court of Appeals
Appellant Kim Judd was convicted of coercion and injuring or tampering with a motor vehicle following a jury trial. Judd now raises six arguments on appeal, including (1) whether the State’s amendments to its criminal information prejudiced his substantial rights; (2) whether NRS 207.190(2)’s use of the phrase “physical force” is limited to force against another person; (3) whether the proper measure of damages to the victim’s vehicle was the cost to repair or replace the damaged parts; (4) whether the district court abused its discretion in failing to dismiss a juror for juror misconduct; (5) whether the district court abused its discretion in failing to set aside his conviction and order a retrospective competency hearing; and (6) whether the district court abused its discretion in denying his request to replace his appointed counsel with retained counsel.