Add to ORKGThe Court determined that when the State conducts a direct-examination of a witness during a preliminary hearing, and then the defendant waives his right to that preliminary hearing, the defendant is said to have had an “adequate opportunity” to confront that witness as long as adequate discovery was available
The Court invoked its supervisory powers and adopted a rule of admissibility to limit the use of a p...
The Court invoked its supervisory powers and adopted a rule of admissibility to limit the use of a p...
The Court concluded that double jeopardy did not prohibit the appellant’s retrial because he had imp...
The Court determined that when the State conducts a direct-examination of a witness during a prelimi...
The Court determined that (1) a district court must perform a comprehensive three-step analysis when...
(1) The Court held the district court’s order was “contrary to the evidence” because the record was ...
The Court clarified the requirements for the introduction of an expert witness under NRS 50.275. Mor...
The Court held that a party waives the right challenge a juror’s presence on appeal when the argumen...
The Court held that evidentiary hearings are appropriate on fair-cross-section challenges when the d...
The Court held that evidentiary hearings are appropriate on fair-cross-section challenges when the d...
The Court determined that a declarant must have testified and have been subject to cross-examination...
The Court held that the district court abused its discretion when overturning a misdemeanor driving ...
The Court reviewed an appeal from a defendant who was convicted of seven sexually related counts. Th...
NRS 62C.240 is triggered when circumstances surrounding a juvenile’s arrest plainly demonstrate that...
The Court focused on the issue of whether a district court can grant a motion to compel disclosure o...
The Court invoked its supervisory powers and adopted a rule of admissibility to limit the use of a p...
The Court invoked its supervisory powers and adopted a rule of admissibility to limit the use of a p...
The Court concluded that double jeopardy did not prohibit the appellant’s retrial because he had imp...
The Court determined that when the State conducts a direct-examination of a witness during a prelimi...
The Court determined that (1) a district court must perform a comprehensive three-step analysis when...
(1) The Court held the district court’s order was “contrary to the evidence” because the record was ...
The Court clarified the requirements for the introduction of an expert witness under NRS 50.275. Mor...
The Court held that a party waives the right challenge a juror’s presence on appeal when the argumen...
The Court held that evidentiary hearings are appropriate on fair-cross-section challenges when the d...
The Court held that evidentiary hearings are appropriate on fair-cross-section challenges when the d...
The Court determined that a declarant must have testified and have been subject to cross-examination...
The Court held that the district court abused its discretion when overturning a misdemeanor driving ...
The Court reviewed an appeal from a defendant who was convicted of seven sexually related counts. Th...
NRS 62C.240 is triggered when circumstances surrounding a juvenile’s arrest plainly demonstrate that...
The Court focused on the issue of whether a district court can grant a motion to compel disclosure o...
The Court invoked its supervisory powers and adopted a rule of admissibility to limit the use of a p...
The Court invoked its supervisory powers and adopted a rule of admissibility to limit the use of a p...
The Court concluded that double jeopardy did not prohibit the appellant’s retrial because he had imp...