Thursday, September 17, 2020-Las Vegas-J. Gibbons, J. Stiglich, and J. Silver
WILLIAMS VS. DAVIS
Docket Number: 78746
Las Vegas - 10:00 A.M. - Southern Panel
This is an appeal from a district court judgment in a tort action. Berthinia Williams sued Kevin M. Davis over a car accident. The district court set a pre-trial conference and trial for March 2019. Williams failed to appear at both the pre-trial conference and trial. The short trial judge granted Davis’ motion for a directed verdict due to Williams’ failure to present any evidence or appear at trial, and dismissed the case with prejudice. That same afternoon, Williams notified the short trial judge that she failed to attend because she had been incarcerated. The district court judge nonetheless signed off on the order directing verdict over a week later. Williams filed a motion for a “Request for new calendar date ‘oral’” and shortly thereafter appealed from the order directing verdict. No judge has ruled on the post-judgment motion yet.
ISSUES:
ISSUES: Whether (1) this court has jurisdiction to entertain this appeal given Williams’ post-judgment motion, and (2) the district court’s directed verdict dismissing Williams’ complaint for non-appearance due to incarceration violates due process.
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: https://caseinfo.nvsupremecourt.us/public/caseSearch.do
GILLILAND (DEVIN) VS. STATE
Docket Number: 79903
Las Vegas - 10:30 A.M. - Southern Panel
This is an appeal from a judgment of conviction, pursuant to a jury verdict, of two counts of sexual assault of a child under 14 years of age and lewdness with a child under the age of 14.
ISSUES:
ISSUES: Whether (1) the State presented sufficient evidence to convict appellant of two counts of sexual assault beyond a reasonable doubt; (2) the district court erred by denying appellant's fair cross-section challenge to the jury panel; (3) the district court erred by denying appellant's Batson challenge to an African American struck by the State; (4) the district court abused its discretion during the settling of jury instructions; (5) the State violated Brady by failing to disclose appellant's videotaped interview with police; (6) the district court abused its discretion by failing to sentence appellant below the statutory minimum pursuant to NRS 176.017; (7) the State committed prosecutorial misconduct during closing arguments by placing the jury in the shoes of the victim; and (8) cumulative error warrants the reversal of appellant’s conviction.
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: https://caseinfo.nvsupremecourt.us/public/caseSearch.do
BANKA (JACK) VS. STATE
Docket Number: 80181
Las Vegas - 11:30 A.M. - Southern Panel
This is an appeal from a judgment of conviction, pursuant to an Alford plea. The State charged appellant Jack Banka by information for one count of “driving and/or being in actual physical control of a motor vehicle while under the influence of an intoxicating liquor or alcohol resulting in substantial bodily harm,” which the State cited to as a “Category B Felony – NRS 484C.110, 484C.430.” Banka pleaded guilty pursuant to an Alford plea, and the district court accepted the plea after canvassing Banka. However, after obtaining new counsel, Banka filed a motion in arrest of judgment alleging that the State’s commingling of two crimes by substituting NRS 484C.110’s “on a highway or on premises to which the public has access” for NRS 484C.430’s “on or off the highways” thereby failing to charge an offense and claiming that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction. Banka also filed a motion to withdraw the previously entered guilty plea, alleging that he did not understand the nature and consequences of the offense and that his prior counsel was ineffective. The district court denied both motions. Banka appeals.
ISSUES:
ISSUES: Whether (1) the district court erred by rejecting Banka’s claim that the State’s commingling of elements from two separate DUI crimes did not charge a legal offense and thus failed to confer subject matter jurisdiction on the court, and (2) the district court abused its discretion by denying Banka’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea.
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: https://caseinfo.nvsupremecourt.us/public/caseSearch.do