Wednesday, July 15, 2020 - Carson City - J. Parraguirre, J. Hardesty, J. Cadish
SPLOND (CHARLES) VS. STATE
Docket Number: 77139
Carson City - 10:00 am - Northern Panel
This is a direct appeal from a judgment of conviction.
ISSUES:
The issues are whether: (1) the State used its peremptory challenges in a discriminatory manner to exclude men from the venire, (2) the district court improperly excluded probative evidence under Nevada’s rape shield statute, (3) the district court abused its discretion by granting a procedurally defective motion to preclude witness testimony, (4) the district court abused its discretion by refusing to grant Splond’s motion for a mistrial, (5) the district court abused its discretion by preventing Splond from impeaching two of the State’s witnesses with gross misdemeanor convictions, (6) the district court abused its discretion by excluding a Department of Motor Vehicles document, and (7) cumulative error warrants reversal.
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
MICKELSON (TRAVIS) VS. STATE
Docket Number: 78513
Carson City - 10:30 am - Northern Panel
Appellant Travis Mickelson fired approximately 13 rounds at a group of Sikh men in a vehicle. At trial, the State presented recorded phone calls obtained from Mickelson’s cell phone during which he made racist remarks about the group of men. A jury found Mickelson guilty of four felony offenses, determining that three were committed because of the actual or perceived race, color, religion, or national origin of the victims.
ISSUES:
Mickelson now appeals, arguing that the district court erred when it denied his motion to suppress the evidence on Fourth and Fifth Amendment grounds; denied his motion for bifurcation of the hate crime enhancements, and; provided a flight instruction.
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
IN RE: GUARDIANSHIP OF K.A.J.
Docket Number: 78217
Carson City - 11:30 am - Northern Panel
This case presents an appeal from a district court order granting permanent guardianship over a minor child.
ISSUES:
The primary issue presented is whether the district court’s award of permanent guardianship in favor of the child’s paternal half-aunt and uncle over the child’s maternal grandmother was in the child’s best interests.
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
STATE VS. THE SECOND JUD. DIST. CT. C/W 80008/80009
Docket Number: 79792
Carson City - 1:30 pm - Northern Panel
These consolidated writ petitions challenge the Second Judicial District Court’s (district court) authority to require the Washoe County District Attorney’s Office (DA) to participate in a petition to seal criminal records, filed by a person previously prosecuted by the DA. In essence, the DA wants the Nevada Supreme Court to order the district court to stop threatening to hold the DA in contempt if they choose not participate in the proceedings.
ISSUES:
The parties’ dispute revolves around the meaning of NRS 179.245(3) and (4). The DA argues that because subsection 3 provides that the DA “may” present evidence at a hearing on the petition, it may choose not to participate. The district court argues that subsection 4 presupposes the DA’s participation in the proceeding because it permits the DA to either “stipulate” or “not stipulate” to the sealing of records. The district court argues that legislative history supports interpreting “not stipulate” to mean “oppose” instead of “ignore,” such that the DA can be compelled to participate in a record-sealing proceeding.
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
ELVIK (PETER) VS. DIST. CT. (STATE)
Docket Number: 80775
Carson City - 2:00 pm - Northern Panel
This is an original petition for a writ of mandamus and/or prohibition challenging a district court order requiring petitioner Peter Elvik to submit to the State’s psychological examination or forfeit presenting testimony at trial of any defense expert who examined him.
ISSUES:
Elvik argues that this decision warrants extraordinary writ review because it raises an important legal issue that needs clarification—whether and to what extent a party can use information it learns during a settlement conference authorized by the newly-enacted SCR 252(2), which requires settlement conferences in criminal cases to be “confidential.”
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