In this appeal, the Court considered whether a jury may consider footwear impression evidence without the aid of expert testimony. The Court determined it was proper here. The Court also considered whether the district court violated the defendant\u27s rights under the Confrontation Clause by allowing a witness to testify via a two-way video and limiting cross-examination to protect proprietary trade secrets. The Court determined that the district court failed to make express findings under Lipitz. The Court also concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion by limiting witness testimony. No reversal was granted, and the court affirmed
The Court determined that the district court erred when it precluded the appellant from testifying b...
The Nevada Supreme Court considered whether a district court’s denial of a defendant’s motion to sub...
The Nevada Supreme Court considered whether the district court erred in dismissing the criminal comp...
The Nevada Supreme Court considered whether the district court erred in denying the Appellant Matthe...
The Court reviewed an appeal from a defendant who was convicted of seven sexually related counts. Th...
(1) The Court held the district court’s order was “contrary to the evidence” because the record was ...
The Court determined that a defendant is not entitled to cross examine examiners who find him incomp...
To determine whether remote testimony by way of video-conferencing satisfies a defendant\u27s consti...
The Court interpreted the good cause showing requirements in NRS 177.015(2) and defined two of the s...
The Court held that a party waives the right challenge a juror’s presence on appeal when the argumen...
The Court clarified the requirements for the introduction of an expert witness under NRS 50.275. Mor...
At oral argument held March 25, 1994, the court raised the question as to whether the jury is free t...
Years after a jury sentenced Bennett to death, newly discovered evidence was presented. This case th...
The Court held that evidentiary hearings are appropriate on fair-cross-section challenges when the d...
Expert witnesses may proffer testimony that embraces ultimate issues (such as a defendant’s mental s...
The Court determined that the district court erred when it precluded the appellant from testifying b...
The Nevada Supreme Court considered whether a district court’s denial of a defendant’s motion to sub...
The Nevada Supreme Court considered whether the district court erred in dismissing the criminal comp...
The Nevada Supreme Court considered whether the district court erred in denying the Appellant Matthe...
The Court reviewed an appeal from a defendant who was convicted of seven sexually related counts. Th...
(1) The Court held the district court’s order was “contrary to the evidence” because the record was ...
The Court determined that a defendant is not entitled to cross examine examiners who find him incomp...
To determine whether remote testimony by way of video-conferencing satisfies a defendant\u27s consti...
The Court interpreted the good cause showing requirements in NRS 177.015(2) and defined two of the s...
The Court held that a party waives the right challenge a juror’s presence on appeal when the argumen...
The Court clarified the requirements for the introduction of an expert witness under NRS 50.275. Mor...
At oral argument held March 25, 1994, the court raised the question as to whether the jury is free t...
Years after a jury sentenced Bennett to death, newly discovered evidence was presented. This case th...
The Court held that evidentiary hearings are appropriate on fair-cross-section challenges when the d...
Expert witnesses may proffer testimony that embraces ultimate issues (such as a defendant’s mental s...
The Court determined that the district court erred when it precluded the appellant from testifying b...
The Nevada Supreme Court considered whether a district court’s denial of a defendant’s motion to sub...
The Nevada Supreme Court considered whether the district court erred in dismissing the criminal comp...