Thursday September 15 2022 - Carson City - J. Hardesty/L. Stiglich/D. Herndon

Zalyaul (Hamza) vs. State
Docket Number: 83334
Carson City - 10:00 am - J. Hardesty/L. Stiglich/D. Herndon

Appellant Hamza Zalyaul committed several delinquent acts in 2013 when he was 14 years of age.  No action was taken by the State against Zalyaul until 2019, when he was charged for the 2013 acts at 21 years of age.  Zalyaul and the State negotiated a plea agreement that attempted to provide punishment similar to what he would have faced in juvenile court if he had been charged at the time of the acts.  Zalyaul eventually accepted the plea agreement and pleaded guilty.  At sentencing, the district court substantially deviated upwards from the recommended sentence in the plea agreement.

ISSUES:

Zalyaul now appeals, arguing that (1) the district court did not have subject matter jurisdiction over him because of his juvenile status at the time of the acts, (2) his right to a speedy trial was violated, and (3) contract principles permit withdrawal of 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

Peters (Kristopher) vs. State
Docket Number: 82437
Carson City - 10:30 am - J. Hardesty/L. Stiglich/D. Herndon

The district court proceeded with a criminal trial, requiring all parties to wear masks, and implementing other restrictions to protect the public during the COVID-19 pandemic.  During jury selection, appellant objected to the trial proceedings including mask mandates and the live streaming of the trial.  During the trial, the district court sua sponte requested witnesses to make a second identification of the defendant without his mask.

ISSUES:

ISSUES: whether (1) the masking of witnesses due to the COVID-19 pandemic violated appellant’s rights under the Confrontation Clause; (2) the district court’s request for a second identification of appellant was unnecessarily suggestive, reliable, and/or prejudicial; and (3) live-streaming of the trial could satisfy appellant’s right to a public trial and whether it violated the exclusionary rule.

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