Tuesday, September 10, 2019 - Las Vegas - J. Hardesty, J. Stiglich, J. Silver
Honea (Joshua) vs. State
Docket Number: 76621
Las Vegas - 10:30 a.m. - J. Hardesty, J. Stiglich, J. Silver
This is an appeal from a judgment of conviction, pursuant to a jury verdict, of sexual assault of a minor under 16 years of age. The State alleged that Joshua Honea had an inappropriate relationship with M.S. beginning when she entered the sixth grade. One of Honea’s coworkers at the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department (Metro) expressed concern to a supervisor about Honea’s relationship with M.S. This caused Metro to launch an investigation. Initially, M.S. denied that the relationship was inappropriate. However, M.S. ultimately came forward and gave a voluntary statement detailing her relationship with Honea. M.S.’s initial statement with police—corroborated by her testimony at a preliminary hearing—detailed numerous sexual acts over the years beginning when M.S. was under 14. During the trial, M.S. recanted her initial statements about the relationship. Nevertheless, the jury convicted Honea on one count of sexual assault with a minor under 16 years of age. After trial concluded, Honea asked for a directed verdict on the basis of insufficient evidence, or in the alternative, a new trial on the basis of juror misconduct. The district court denied his motion and sentenced Honea to life in prison with the possibility of parole after 25 years. Honea now appeals his conviction and the denial of his request for a directed verdict or new trial.
ISSUES:
Whether (1) the district court erred by excluding lack of consent in the jury instructions; (2) there was sufficient evidence to convict Honea of sexual assault; and (3) the district court erred in denying Honea’s request for a new trial.
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
Campis (Frank) vs. State
Docket Number: 76309
Las Vegas - 11:00 a.m. - J. Hardesty, J. Stiglich, J. Silver
Frank Campis shot the victim in the back of the head while she sat on a block wall in a Las Vegas parking lot. Campis, who was drunk at the time of the shooting, mistakenly believed the victim to be someone else. Campis eventually entered into a guilty plea agreement for second degree murder with use of a deadly weapon. He petitioned the district court for the minimum sentence based upon his remorse, his alcoholism, his age, his lack of criminal history, and other factors. The State argued for a lengthier sentence based on the nature of the shooting and Campis’s writings, in which he expressed his desire to experience shooting another person in the head. The district court followed the State’s recommendation and sentenced Campis to life with the possibility of parole after 10 years, plus a consecutive term of 8-20 years for the deadly weapon enhancement.
ISSUES:
The issue on appeal is whether the district court abused its discretion by imposing a lengthy sentence despite the mitigating factors and without articulating the reasons for the sentence.
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
Reif vs. Aries Consultants, Inc.
Docket Number: 76121
Las Vegas - 11:30 a.m. - J. Hardesty, J. Stiglich, J. Silver
Appellant Marcus Reif appeals the district court’s order dismissing his claim for failure to comply with NRS 11.258, pursuant to NRS 11.259. Reif alleges that the district court improperly interpreted NRS 11.258 as requiring the attorney affidavit of merit and expert report to be filed concurrently with the complaint, rather than served concurrently.
ISSUES:
Respondent Aries Consultants, Inc. argues that the district court was correct in its legal determinations. In the alternative, Aries argues that Reif’s attorney affidavit does not comply with NRS 11.258 because the attorney who signed the affidavit is not licensed in Nevada nor admitted pro hac vice in this action.
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
Cantor G&W (Nevada) Holdings, L.P. vs. Asher
Docket Number: 74923
Las Vegas - 1:30 p.m. - J. Hardesty, J. Stiglich, J. Silver
This is an appeal from a final judgment and award of attorney fees, following a jury trial. Appellants sued their former partner, respondent Joseph Asher, for breach of a partnership agreement, and breach of fiduciary duties, among other claims. Asher counterclaimed for constructive discharge, among other causes of action. After a jury trial in a bifurcated proceeding, the jury found in favor of Asher on all causes of action and the district court awarded Asher $1,167,797 in attorney fees and costs.
ISSUES:
Appellants challenge a number of the district court’s evidentiary rulings and jury instructions, as well as the award of attorney fees, which they argue was invalid under NRS 17.115 (2014) and NRCP 68(3) because it was unapportioned amongst the various plaintiffs and the jury’s verdict was fatally flawed.
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
Sun City Summerlin Cmty. Ass’n, Inc. vs. Clark Cty C/W 76791
Docket Number: 75914
Las Vegas - 2:00 p.m. - J. Hardesty, J. Stiglich, J. Silver
This is a consolidated appeal from a district court order dismissing a petition for judicial review in a tax matter. The underlying facts of this appeal arise out of respondent Clark County Assessor’s tax valuation of five common area parcels of land owned by appellants Sun City Summerlin Community Association and Richard and Masako Post. Additionally, it concerns decisions rendered by respondent State Board of Equalization
ISSUES:
Appellants petitioned the district court for judicial review of respondent’s latest decision, as well as filed a motion to vacate that decision. The district court dismissed appellants’ petition for judicial review for lack of jurisdiction because appellants did not name different taxpayers whose cases were consolidated with appellants’ cases for purposes of an administrative hearing. Appellants filed a motion for reconsideration. The district court then denied both appellants’ motion to vacate and the motion for reconsideration. This appeal follows.
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