Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
5 Nevada opinions name it 1 courts 2013–2022 3 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Nevada courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Browning v. Stategreen2 sentences2022Although the prosecutor's comments were objectionable because they "ridicule [d] or belittle[d] the defendant or the case," Earl v. State, 111 Nev. 1304, 1311 , 904 P.2d 1029, 1033 (1995); see Browning v. State, 124 Nev. 517, 534 , 188 P.3d 60, 72 (2008) (noting that a prosecutor's disparagement of defense counsel or the legitimate tactics of defense counsel is improper conduct), that does not necessarily mean that penalty phase counsel had to object to provide reasonably competent assistance. 2022Although the prosecutor's comments were objectionable because they "ridicule [d] or belittle[d] the defendant or the case," Earl v. State, 111 Nev. 1304, 1311 , 904 P.2d 1029, 1033 (1995); see Browning v. State, 124 Nev. 517, 534 , 188 P.3d 60, 72 (2008) (noting that a prosecutor's disparagement of defense counsel or the legitimate tactics of defense counsel is improper conduct), that does not necessarily mean that penalty phase counsel had to object to provide reasonably competent assistance. | 5 | 5 |
Earl v. Stategreen2 sentences2022Although the prosecutor's comments were objectionable because they "ridicule [d] or belittle[d] the defendant or the case," Earl v. State, 111 Nev. 1304, 1311 , 904 P.2d 1029, 1033 (1995); see Browning v. State, 124 Nev. 517, 534 , 188 P.3d 60, 72 (2008) (noting that a prosecutor's disparagement of defense counsel or the legitimate tactics of defense counsel is improper conduct), that does not necessarily mean that penalty phase counsel had to object to provide reasonably competent assistance. 2022Although the prosecutor's comments were objectionable because they "ridicule [d] or belittle[d] the defendant or the case," Earl v. State, 111 Nev. 1304, 1311 , 904 P.2d 1029, 1033 (1995); see Browning v. State, 124 Nev. 517, 534 , 188 P.3d 60, 72 (2008) (noting that a prosecutor's disparagement of defense counsel or the legitimate tactics of defense counsel is improper conduct), that does not necessarily mean that penalty phase counsel had to object to provide reasonably competent assistance. | 4 | 4 |
Hernandez v. Stategreen2 sentences2022Given its brevity, the prosecutor's comment arguably did not "so infect[] the proceedings with unfairness as to make the results a denial 30 of due process," Hernandez v. State, 118 Nev. 513, 525 , 50 P.3d 1100, 1108 (2002), and an objection may have only served to emphasize the prosecutor's point. 2022Given its brevity, the prosecutor's comment arguably did not "so infect[] the proceedings with unfairness as to make the results a denial 30 of due process," Hernandez v. State, 118 Nev. 513, 525 , 50 P.3d 1100, 1108 (2002), and an objection may have only served to emphasize the prosecutor's point. | 1 | 1 |
Ralph Bussard v. A.L. Lockhart, Director, Arkansas Department of Correctionsgreen1 sentence2016Nevertheless, Middleton fails to demonstrate that counsel's failure to object or challenge the comment on appeal was unreasonable See Ennis v. State, 122 Nev. 694, 706 , 137 P.3d 1095, 1103 (2006); Bussard v. Lockhart, 32 F.3d 322, 324 (8th Cir. 1994) (observing that decision whether to object to prosecutorial misconduct is a strategic one and "must take into account the possibility that the court will overrule it and that the objection will either antagonize the jury or underscore the prosecutor's words in their minds"). | 1 | 1 |
Ennis v. Stategreen2 sentences2016Nevertheless, Middleton fails to demonstrate that counsel's failure to object or challenge the comment on appeal was unreasonable See Ennis v. State, 122 Nev. 694, 706 , 137 P.3d 1095, 1103 (2006); Bussard v. Lockhart, 32 F.3d 322, 324 (8th Cir. 1994) (observing that decision whether to object to prosecutorial misconduct is a strategic one and "must take into account the possibility that the court will overrule it and that the objection will either antagonize the jury or underscore the prosecutor's words in their minds"). 2016Nevertheless, Middleton fails to demonstrate that counsel's failure to object or challenge the comment on appeal was unreasonable See Ennis v. State, 122 Nev. 694, 706 , 137 P.3d 1095, 1103 (2006); Bussard v. Lockhart, 32 F.3d 322, 324 (8th Cir. 1994) (observing that decision whether to object to prosecutorial misconduct is a strategic one and "must take into account the possibility that the court will overrule it and that the objection will either antagonize the jury or underscore the prosecutor's words in their minds"). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Nevada. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.