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.
21 Nevada opinions name it 2 courts 2008–2026 7 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 |
|---|---|---|
Jeremias v. Stategreen2 sentences2026Under that standard, we will correct a forfeited error only when an appellant demonstrates that "(1) there was an 'error," (2) said error was "clear under current law from a casual .inspection of the record," "and (3) the error affected the defendant's substantial rights." Id. 2024"Before this court will correct a forfeited error, an appellant must demonstrate that: (1) there was an error; (2) the error is plain, meaning that it is clear under current law from a casual inspection of the record; and (3) the error affected the defendant's substantial rights." Jeremias v. State, 134 Nev. 46 , 50, 412 P.3d 43, 48 (2018) (internal quotation marks omitted). "[P]lain error affects a defendant's substantial rights when it causes actual prejudice or a miscarriage of justice (defined as a 'grossly unfair' outcome)." Id. at 51 , 412 P.3d at 49 (citing Valdez v. State, 124 Nev. 117 | 15 | 17 |
United States v. Olanogreen2 sentences2018See NRS 178.602 (plain error); Jeremias v. State , 134 Nev. ----, ----, 412 P.3d 43 , 48 (2018) (explaining NRS 178.602 provides a mechanism for review of a forfeited error); Nelson v. State , 123 Nev. 534 , 543-44, 170 P.3d 517 , 523-24 (2007) (reviewing an unpreserved challenge to an empaneled juror for plain error); see also United States v. Olano , 507 U.S. 725 , 733, 113 S.Ct. 1770 , 123 L.Ed.2d 508 (1993) (distinguishing waiver, which occurs where a defendant intentionally relinquishes a known right, from forfeiture, the failure to timely assert a right). 2018See NRS 178.602 (plain error); Jeremias v. State , 134 Nev. ----, ----, 412 P.3d 43 , 48 (2018) (explaining NRS 178.602 provides a mechanism for review of a forfeited error); Nelson v. State , 123 Nev. 534 , 543-44, 170 P.3d 517 , 523-24 (2007) (reviewing an unpreserved challenge to an empaneled juror for plain error); see also United States v. Olano , 507 U.S. 725 , 733, 113 S.Ct. 1770 , 123 L.Ed.2d 508 (1993) (distinguishing waiver, which occurs where a defendant intentionally relinquishes a known right, from forfeiture, the failure to timely assert a right). | 5 | 5 |
Green v. Stategreen2 sentences2008However, in Harkness v. State, this court noted that objections to the prosecutor's general line of questioning or argument are sufficient to preserve the issue for appeal under harmless-error analysis. 107 Nev. 800 , 802 n. 1, 820 P.2d 759 , 760 n. 1 (1991). [45] See Green v. State, 119 Nev. 542, 545 , 80 P.3d 93, 95 (2003) (explaining that failure to object to a jury instruction precludes appellate review except in circumstances amounting to plain error under NRS 178.602). [46] Id.; see also Olano, 507 U.S. at 734 , 113 S.Ct. 1770 ("In most cases, a court of appeals cannot correct the forfei 2008However, in Harkness v. State, this court noted that objections to the prosecutor's general line of questioning or argument are sufficient to preserve the issue for appeal under harmless-error analysis. 107 Nev. 800 , 802 n. 1, 820 P.2d 759 , 760 n. 1 (1991). [45] See Green v. State, 119 Nev. 542, 545 , 80 P.3d 93, 95 (2003) (explaining that failure to object to a jury instruction precludes appellate review except in circumstances amounting to plain error under NRS 178.602). [46] Id.; see also Olano, 507 U.S. at 734 , 113 S.Ct. 1770 ("In most cases, a court of appeals cannot correct the forfei | 3 | 4 |
Nelson v. Stategreen2 sentences2018See NRS 178.602 (plain error); Jeremias v. State , 134 Nev. ----, ----, 412 P.3d 43 , 48 (2018) (explaining NRS 178.602 provides a mechanism for review of a forfeited error); Nelson v. State , 123 Nev. 534 , 543-44, 170 P.3d 517 , 523-24 (2007) (reviewing an unpreserved challenge to an empaneled juror for plain error); see also United States v. Olano , 507 U.S. 725 , 733, 113 S.Ct. 1770 , 123 L.Ed.2d 508 (1993) (distinguishing waiver, which occurs where a defendant intentionally relinquishes a known right, from forfeiture, the failure to timely assert a right). 2018See NRS 178.602 (plain error); Jeremias v. State , 134 Nev. ----, ----, 412 P.3d 43 , 48 (2018) (explaining NRS 178.602 provides a mechanism for review of a forfeited error); Nelson v. State , 123 Nev. 534 , 543-44, 170 P.3d 517 , 523-24 (2007) (reviewing an unpreserved challenge to an empaneled juror for plain error); see also United States v. Olano , 507 U.S. 725 , 733, 113 S.Ct. 1770 , 123 L.Ed.2d 508 (1993) (distinguishing waiver, which occurs where a defendant intentionally relinquishes a known right, from forfeiture, the failure to timely assert a right). | 3 | 4 |
Jezdik v. Stategreen2 sentences2018See Jezdik v. State, 121 Nev. 129 , 140, 110 P.3d 1058 , 1065 (2005) (declining to correct a forfeited error where the record did not establish the reason for counsel's failure to object). 2018See Jezdik v. State, 121 Nev. 129 , 140, 110 P.3d 1058 , 1065 (2005) (declining to correct a forfeited error where the record did not establish the reason for counsel's failure to object). | 3 | 3 |
Carr v. Stategreen2 sentences2024SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 5 ((1) 19-17A As noted, the relevant version of the habitual criminal statute requires three prior felony convictions.2 NRS 207.010(1)(b) (1995). "[A]ll prior convictions used to enhance a sentence must have preceded the primary offense." Carr v. State, 96 Nev. 936, 939 , 620 P.2d 869, 871 (1980). 2024SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 5 ((1) 19-17A As noted, the relevant version of the habitual criminal statute requires three prior felony convictions.2 NRS 207.010(1)(b) (1995). "[A]ll prior convictions used to enhance a sentence must have preceded the primary offense." Carr v. State, 96 Nev. 936, 939 , 620 P.2d 869, 871 (1980). | 1 | 1 |
Valdez v. Stategreen2 sentences2024"Before this court will correct a forfeited error, an appellant must demonstrate that: (1) there was an error; (2) the error is plain, meaning that it is clear under current law from a casual inspection of the record; and (3) the error affected the defendant's substantial rights." Jeremias v. State, 134 Nev. 46 , 50, 412 P.3d 43, 48 (2018) (internal quotation marks omitted). "[P]lain error affects a defendant's substantial rights when it causes actual prejudice or a miscarriage of justice (defined as a 'grossly unfair' outcome)." Id. at 51 , 412 P.3d at 49 (citing Valdez v. State, 124 Nev. 117 2024"Before this court will correct a forfeited error, an appellant must demonstrate that: (1) there was an error; (2) the error is plain, meaning that it is clear under current law from a casual inspection of the record; and (3) the error affected the defendant's substantial rights." Jeremias v. State, 134 Nev. 46 , 50, 412 P.3d 43, 48 (2018) (internal quotation marks omitted). "[P]lain error affects a defendant's substantial rights when it causes actual prejudice or a miscarriage of justice (defined as a 'grossly unfair' outcome)." Id. at 51 , 412 P.3d at 49 (citing Valdez v. State, 124 Nev. 117 | 1 | 1 |
Meyer v. Stategreen2 sentences2008However, in Harkness v. State, this court noted that objections to the prosecutor's general line of questioning or argument are sufficient to preserve the issue for appeal under harmless-error analysis. 107 Nev. 800 , 802 n. 1, 820 P.2d 759 , 760 n. 1 (1991). [45] See Green v. State, 119 Nev. 542, 545 , 80 P.3d 93, 95 (2003) (explaining that failure to object to a jury instruction precludes appellate review except in circumstances amounting to plain error under NRS 178.602). [46] Id.; see also Olano, 507 U.S. at 734 , 113 S.Ct. 1770 ("In most cases, a court of appeals cannot correct the forfei 2008However, in Harkness v. State, this court noted that objections to the prosecutor's general line of questioning or argument are sufficient to preserve the issue for appeal under harmless-error analysis. 107 Nev. 800 , 802 n. 1, 820 P.2d 759 , 760 n. 1 (1991). [45] See Green v. State, 119 Nev. 542, 545 , 80 P.3d 93, 95 (2003) (explaining that failure to object to a jury instruction precludes appellate review except in circumstances amounting to plain error under NRS 178.602). [46] Id.; see also Olano, 507 U.S. at 734 , 113 S.Ct. 1770 ("In most cases, a court of appeals cannot correct the forfei | 1 | 1 |
Keys v. Stategreen2 sentences2008However, in Harkness v. State, this court noted that objections to the prosecutor's general line of questioning or argument are sufficient to preserve the issue for appeal under harmless-error analysis. 107 Nev. 800 , 802 n. 1, 820 P.2d 759 , 760 n. 1 (1991). [45] See Green v. State, 119 Nev. 542, 545 , 80 P.3d 93, 95 (2003) (explaining that failure to object to a jury instruction precludes appellate review except in circumstances amounting to plain error under NRS 178.602). [46] Id.; see also Olano, 507 U.S. at 734 , 113 S.Ct. 1770 ("In most cases, a court of appeals cannot correct the forfei 2008However, in Harkness v. State, this court noted that objections to the prosecutor's general line of questioning or argument are sufficient to preserve the issue for appeal under harmless-error analysis. 107 Nev. 800 , 802 n. 1, 820 P.2d 759 , 760 n. 1 (1991). [45] See Green v. State, 119 Nev. 542, 545 , 80 P.3d 93, 95 (2003) (explaining that failure to object to a jury instruction precludes appellate review except in circumstances amounting to plain error under NRS 178.602). [46] Id.; see also Olano, 507 U.S. at 734 , 113 S.Ct. 1770 ("In most cases, a court of appeals cannot correct the forfei | 1 | 1 |
Johnson v. Stategreen2 sentences2008However, in Harkness v. State, this court noted that objections to the prosecutor's general line of questioning or argument are sufficient to preserve the issue for appeal under harmless-error analysis. 107 Nev. 800 , 802 n. 1, 820 P.2d 759 , 760 n. 1 (1991). [45] See Green v. State, 119 Nev. 542, 545 , 80 P.3d 93, 95 (2003) (explaining that failure to object to a jury instruction precludes appellate review except in circumstances amounting to plain error under NRS 178.602). [46] Id.; see also Olano, 507 U.S. at 734 , 113 S.Ct. 1770 ("In most cases, a court of appeals cannot correct the forfei 2008However, in Harkness v. State, this court noted that objections to the prosecutor's general line of questioning or argument are sufficient to preserve the issue for appeal under harmless-error analysis. 107 Nev. 800 , 802 n. 1, 820 P.2d 759 , 760 n. 1 (1991). [45] See Green v. State, 119 Nev. 542, 545 , 80 P.3d 93, 95 (2003) (explaining that failure to object to a jury instruction precludes appellate review except in circumstances amounting to plain error under NRS 178.602). [46] Id.; see also Olano, 507 U.S. at 734 , 113 S.Ct. 1770 ("In most cases, a court of appeals cannot correct the forfei | 1 | 1 |
Daniel v. Stategreen2 sentences2008However, in Harkness v. State, this court noted that objections to the prosecutor's general line of questioning or argument are sufficient to preserve the issue for appeal under harmless-error analysis. 107 Nev. 800 , 802 n. 1, 820 P.2d 759 , 760 n. 1 (1991). [45] See Green v. State, 119 Nev. 542, 545 , 80 P.3d 93, 95 (2003) (explaining that failure to object to a jury instruction precludes appellate review except in circumstances amounting to plain error under NRS 178.602). [46] Id.; see also Olano, 507 U.S. at 734 , 113 S.Ct. 1770 ("In most cases, a court of appeals cannot correct the forfei 2008However, in Harkness v. State, this court noted that objections to the prosecutor's general line of questioning or argument are sufficient to preserve the issue for appeal under harmless-error analysis. 107 Nev. 800 , 802 n. 1, 820 P.2d 759 , 760 n. 1 (1991). [45] See Green v. State, 119 Nev. 542, 545 , 80 P.3d 93, 95 (2003) (explaining that failure to object to a jury instruction precludes appellate review except in circumstances amounting to plain error under NRS 178.602). [46] Id.; see also Olano, 507 U.S. at 734 , 113 S.Ct. 1770 ("In most cases, a court of appeals cannot correct the forfei | 1 | 1 |
DePasquale v. Stategreen2 sentences2008However, in Harkness v. State, this court noted that objections to the prosecutor's general line of questioning or argument are sufficient to preserve the issue for appeal under harmless-error analysis. 107 Nev. 800 , 802 n. 1, 820 P.2d 759 , 760 n. 1 (1991). [45] See Green v. State, 119 Nev. 542, 545 , 80 P.3d 93, 95 (2003) (explaining that failure to object to a jury instruction precludes appellate review except in circumstances amounting to plain error under NRS 178.602). [46] Id.; see also Olano, 507 U.S. at 734 , 113 S.Ct. 1770 ("In most cases, a court of appeals cannot correct the forfei 2008However, in Harkness v. State, this court noted that objections to the prosecutor's general line of questioning or argument are sufficient to preserve the issue for appeal under harmless-error analysis. 107 Nev. 800 , 802 n. 1, 820 P.2d 759 , 760 n. 1 (1991). [45] See Green v. State, 119 Nev. 542, 545 , 80 P.3d 93, 95 (2003) (explaining that failure to object to a jury instruction precludes appellate review except in circumstances amounting to plain error under NRS 178.602). [46] Id.; see also Olano, 507 U.S. at 734 , 113 S.Ct. 1770 ("In most cases, a court of appeals cannot correct the forfei | 1 | 1 |
Kelly v. Stategreen2 sentences2008However, in Harkness v. State, this court noted that objections to the prosecutor's general line of questioning or argument are sufficient to preserve the issue for appeal under harmless-error analysis. 107 Nev. 800 , 802 n. 1, 820 P.2d 759 , 760 n. 1 (1991). [45] See Green v. State, 119 Nev. 542, 545 , 80 P.3d 93, 95 (2003) (explaining that failure to object to a jury instruction precludes appellate review except in circumstances amounting to plain error under NRS 178.602). [46] Id.; see also Olano, 507 U.S. at 734 , 113 S.Ct. 1770 ("In most cases, a court of appeals cannot correct the forfei 2008However, in Harkness v. State, this court noted that objections to the prosecutor's general line of questioning or argument are sufficient to preserve the issue for appeal under harmless-error analysis. 107 Nev. 800 , 802 n. 1, 820 P.2d 759 , 760 n. 1 (1991). [45] See Green v. State, 119 Nev. 542, 545 , 80 P.3d 93, 95 (2003) (explaining that failure to object to a jury instruction precludes appellate review except in circumstances amounting to plain error under NRS 178.602). [46] Id.; see also Olano, 507 U.S. at 734 , 113 S.Ct. 1770 ("In most cases, a court of appeals cannot correct the forfei | 1 | 1 |
Garcia v. Stategreen2 sentences2008However, in Harkness v. State, this court noted that objections to the prosecutor's general line of questioning or argument are sufficient to preserve the issue for appeal under harmless-error analysis. 107 Nev. 800 , 802 n. 1, 820 P.2d 759 , 760 n. 1 (1991). [45] See Green v. State, 119 Nev. 542, 545 , 80 P.3d 93, 95 (2003) (explaining that failure to object to a jury instruction precludes appellate review except in circumstances amounting to plain error under NRS 178.602). [46] Id.; see also Olano, 507 U.S. at 734 , 113 S.Ct. 1770 ("In most cases, a court of appeals cannot correct the forfei 2008However, in Harkness v. State, this court noted that objections to the prosecutor's general line of questioning or argument are sufficient to preserve the issue for appeal under harmless-error analysis. 107 Nev. 800 , 802 n. 1, 820 P.2d 759 , 760 n. 1 (1991). [45] See Green v. State, 119 Nev. 542, 545 , 80 P.3d 93, 95 (2003) (explaining that failure to object to a jury instruction precludes appellate review except in circumstances amounting to plain error under NRS 178.602). [46] Id.; see also Olano, 507 U.S. at 734 , 113 S.Ct. 1770 ("In most cases, a court of appeals cannot correct the forfei | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Lovelessgreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Shannongreen | 1 | 1 |
Browne v. Stategreen2 sentences2008However, in Harkness v. State, this court noted that objections to the prosecutor's general line of questioning or argument are sufficient to preserve the issue for appeal under harmless-error analysis. 107 Nev. 800 , 802 n. 1, 820 P.2d 759 , 760 n. 1 (1991). [45] See Green v. State, 119 Nev. 542, 545 , 80 P.3d 93, 95 (2003) (explaining that failure to object to a jury instruction precludes appellate review except in circumstances amounting to plain error under NRS 178.602). [46] Id.; see also Olano, 507 U.S. at 734 , 113 S.Ct. 1770 ("In most cases, a court of appeals cannot correct the forfei 2008However, in Harkness v. State, this court noted that objections to the prosecutor's general line of questioning or argument are sufficient to preserve the issue for appeal under harmless-error analysis. 107 Nev. 800 , 802 n. 1, 820 P.2d 759 , 760 n. 1 (1991). [45] See Green v. State, 119 Nev. 542, 545 , 80 P.3d 93, 95 (2003) (explaining that failure to object to a jury instruction precludes appellate review except in circumstances amounting to plain error under NRS 178.602). [46] Id.; see also Olano, 507 U.S. at 734 , 113 S.Ct. 1770 ("In most cases, a court of appeals cannot correct the forfei | 1 | 1 |
Bolden v. Stategreen2 sentences2008See Bolden v. State, 97 Nev. 71, 73 , 624 P.2d 20, 20 (1981) (noting that it is the jury's function to weigh witness credibility). [27] Sharma v. State, 118 Nev. 648, 652 , 56 P.3d 868, 870 (2002) (quoting Keys v. State, 104 Nev. 736, 740 , 766 P.2d 270, 273 (1988)). [28] Id. at 659, 56 P.3d 868 , 56 P.3d at 874 . [29] See Dearman v. State, 93 Nev. 364, 367 , 566 P.2d 407, 409 (1977) ("Intent to kill ... may be ascertained or deduced from the facts and circumstances of the killing, such as use of a weapon calculated to produce death, the manner of use, and the attendant circumstances."). [30] 2008See Bolden v. State, 97 Nev. 71, 73 , 624 P.2d 20, 20 (1981) (noting that it is the jury's function to weigh witness credibility). [27] Sharma v. State, 118 Nev. 648, 652 , 56 P.3d 868, 870 (2002) (quoting Keys v. State, 104 Nev. 736, 740 , 766 P.2d 270, 273 (1988)). [28] Id. at 659, 56 P.3d 868 , 56 P.3d at 874 . [29] See Dearman v. State, 93 Nev. 364, 367 , 566 P.2d 407, 409 (1977) ("Intent to kill ... may be ascertained or deduced from the facts and circumstances of the killing, such as use of a weapon calculated to produce death, the manner of use, and the attendant circumstances."). [30] | 1 | 1 |
| Greene v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
Kevin Allen Big Pond v. Stategreen2 sentences2008However, in Harkness v. State, this court noted that objections to the prosecutor's general line of questioning or argument are sufficient to preserve the issue for appeal under harmless-error analysis. 107 Nev. 800 , 802 n. 1, 820 P.2d 759 , 760 n. 1 (1991). [45] See Green v. State, 119 Nev. 542, 545 , 80 P.3d 93, 95 (2003) (explaining that failure to object to a jury instruction precludes appellate review except in circumstances amounting to plain error under NRS 178.602). [46] Id.; see also Olano, 507 U.S. at 734 , 113 S.Ct. 1770 ("In most cases, a court of appeals cannot correct the forfei 2008However, in Harkness v. State, this court noted that objections to the prosecutor's general line of questioning or argument are sufficient to preserve the issue for appeal under harmless-error analysis. 107 Nev. 800 , 802 n. 1, 820 P.2d 759 , 760 n. 1 (1991). [45] See Green v. State, 119 Nev. 542, 545 , 80 P.3d 93, 95 (2003) (explaining that failure to object to a jury instruction precludes appellate review except in circumstances amounting to plain error under NRS 178.602). [46] Id.; see also Olano, 507 U.S. at 734 , 113 S.Ct. 1770 ("In most cases, a court of appeals cannot correct the forfei | 1 | 1 |
Hernandez v. Stategreen2 sentences2008However, in Harkness v. State, this court noted that objections to the prosecutor's general line of questioning or argument are sufficient to preserve the issue for appeal under harmless-error analysis. 107 Nev. 800 , 802 n. 1, 820 P.2d 759 , 760 n. 1 (1991). [45] See Green v. State, 119 Nev. 542, 545 , 80 P.3d 93, 95 (2003) (explaining that failure to object to a jury instruction precludes appellate review except in circumstances amounting to plain error under NRS 178.602). [46] Id.; see also Olano, 507 U.S. at 734 , 113 S.Ct. 1770 ("In most cases, a court of appeals cannot correct the forfei 2008However, in Harkness v. State, this court noted that objections to the prosecutor's general line of questioning or argument are sufficient to preserve the issue for appeal under harmless-error analysis. 107 Nev. 800 , 802 n. 1, 820 P.2d 759 , 760 n. 1 (1991). [45] See Green v. State, 119 Nev. 542, 545 , 80 P.3d 93, 95 (2003) (explaining that failure to object to a jury instruction precludes appellate review except in circumstances amounting to plain error under NRS 178.602). [46] Id.; see also Olano, 507 U.S. at 734 , 113 S.Ct. 1770 ("In most cases, a court of appeals cannot correct the forfei | 1 | 1 |
Dearman v. Stategreen2 sentences2008However, in Harkness v. State, this court noted that objections to the prosecutor's general line of questioning or argument are sufficient to preserve the issue for appeal under harmless-error analysis. 107 Nev. 800 , 802 n. 1, 820 P.2d 759 , 760 n. 1 (1991). [45] See Green v. State, 119 Nev. 542, 545 , 80 P.3d 93, 95 (2003) (explaining that failure to object to a jury instruction precludes appellate review except in circumstances amounting to plain error under NRS 178.602). [46] Id.; see also Olano, 507 U.S. at 734 , 113 S.Ct. 1770 ("In most cases, a court of appeals cannot correct the forfei 2008However, in Harkness v. State, this court noted that objections to the prosecutor's general line of questioning or argument are sufficient to preserve the issue for appeal under harmless-error analysis. 107 Nev. 800 , 802 n. 1, 820 P.2d 759 , 760 n. 1 (1991). [45] See Green v. State, 119 Nev. 542, 545 , 80 P.3d 93, 95 (2003) (explaining that failure to object to a jury instruction precludes appellate review except in circumstances amounting to plain error under NRS 178.602). [46] Id.; see also Olano, 507 U.S. at 734 , 113 S.Ct. 1770 ("In most cases, a court of appeals cannot correct the forfei | 1 | 1 |
Mulder v. Stategreen2 sentences2008However, in Harkness v. State, this court noted that objections to the prosecutor's general line of questioning or argument are sufficient to preserve the issue for appeal under harmless-error analysis. 107 Nev. 800 , 802 n. 1, 820 P.2d 759 , 760 n. 1 (1991). [45] See Green v. State, 119 Nev. 542, 545 , 80 P.3d 93, 95 (2003) (explaining that failure to object to a jury instruction precludes appellate review except in circumstances amounting to plain error under NRS 178.602). [46] Id.; see also Olano, 507 U.S. at 734 , 113 S.Ct. 1770 ("In most cases, a court of appeals cannot correct the forfei 2008However, in Harkness v. State, this court noted that objections to the prosecutor's general line of questioning or argument are sufficient to preserve the issue for appeal under harmless-error analysis. 107 Nev. 800 , 802 n. 1, 820 P.2d 759 , 760 n. 1 (1991). [45] See Green v. State, 119 Nev. 542, 545 , 80 P.3d 93, 95 (2003) (explaining that failure to object to a jury instruction precludes appellate review except in circumstances amounting to plain error under NRS 178.602). [46] Id.; see also Olano, 507 U.S. at 734 , 113 S.Ct. 1770 ("In most cases, a court of appeals cannot correct the forfei | 1 | 1 |
Byford v. Stategreen2 sentences2008However, in Harkness v. State, this court noted that objections to the prosecutor's general line of questioning or argument are sufficient to preserve the issue for appeal under harmless-error analysis. 107 Nev. 800 , 802 n. 1, 820 P.2d 759 , 760 n. 1 (1991). [45] See Green v. State, 119 Nev. 542, 545 , 80 P.3d 93, 95 (2003) (explaining that failure to object to a jury instruction precludes appellate review except in circumstances amounting to plain error under NRS 178.602). [46] Id.; see also Olano, 507 U.S. at 734 , 113 S.Ct. 1770 ("In most cases, a court of appeals cannot correct the forfei 2008However, in Harkness v. State, this court noted that objections to the prosecutor's general line of questioning or argument are sufficient to preserve the issue for appeal under harmless-error analysis. 107 Nev. 800 , 802 n. 1, 820 P.2d 759 , 760 n. 1 (1991). [45] See Green v. State, 119 Nev. 542, 545 , 80 P.3d 93, 95 (2003) (explaining that failure to object to a jury instruction precludes appellate review except in circumstances amounting to plain error under NRS 178.602). [46] Id.; see also Olano, 507 U.S. at 734 , 113 S.Ct. 1770 ("In most cases, a court of appeals cannot correct the forfei | 1 | 1 |
State v. Rodriguezgreen1 sentence2008However, in Harkness v. State, this court noted that objections to the prosecutor's general line of questioning or argument are sufficient to preserve the issue for appeal under harmless-error analysis. 107 Nev. 800 , 802 n. 1, 820 P.2d 759 , 760 n. 1 (1991). [45] See Green v. State, 119 Nev. 542, 545 , 80 P.3d 93, 95 (2003) (explaining that failure to object to a jury instruction precludes appellate review except in circumstances amounting to plain error under NRS 178.602). [46] Id.; see also Olano, 507 U.S. at 734 , 113 S.Ct. 1770 ("In most cases, a court of appeals cannot correct the forfei | 1 | 1 |
Schoels v. Stategreen2 sentences2008However, in Harkness v. State, this court noted that objections to the prosecutor's general line of questioning or argument are sufficient to preserve the issue for appeal under harmless-error analysis. 107 Nev. 800 , 802 n. 1, 820 P.2d 759 , 760 n. 1 (1991). [45] See Green v. State, 119 Nev. 542, 545 , 80 P.3d 93, 95 (2003) (explaining that failure to object to a jury instruction precludes appellate review except in circumstances amounting to plain error under NRS 178.602). [46] Id.; see also Olano, 507 U.S. at 734 , 113 S.Ct. 1770 ("In most cases, a court of appeals cannot correct the forfei 2008However, in Harkness v. State, this court noted that objections to the prosecutor's general line of questioning or argument are sufficient to preserve the issue for appeal under harmless-error analysis. 107 Nev. 800 , 802 n. 1, 820 P.2d 759 , 760 n. 1 (1991). [45] See Green v. State, 119 Nev. 542, 545 , 80 P.3d 93, 95 (2003) (explaining that failure to object to a jury instruction precludes appellate review except in circumstances amounting to plain error under NRS 178.602). [46] Id.; see also Olano, 507 U.S. at 734 , 113 S.Ct. 1770 ("In most cases, a court of appeals cannot correct the forfei | 1 | 1 |
| Flanagan v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
Sharma v. Stategreen2 sentences2008However, in Harkness v. State, this court noted that objections to the prosecutor's general line of questioning or argument are sufficient to preserve the issue for appeal under harmless-error analysis. 107 Nev. 800 , 802 n. 1, 820 P.2d 759 , 760 n. 1 (1991). [45] See Green v. State, 119 Nev. 542, 545 , 80 P.3d 93, 95 (2003) (explaining that failure to object to a jury instruction precludes appellate review except in circumstances amounting to plain error under NRS 178.602). [46] Id.; see also Olano, 507 U.S. at 734 , 113 S.Ct. 1770 ("In most cases, a court of appeals cannot correct the forfei 2008However, in Harkness v. State, this court noted that objections to the prosecutor's general line of questioning or argument are sufficient to preserve the issue for appeal under harmless-error analysis. 107 Nev. 800 , 802 n. 1, 820 P.2d 759 , 760 n. 1 (1991). [45] See Green v. State, 119 Nev. 542, 545 , 80 P.3d 93, 95 (2003) (explaining that failure to object to a jury instruction precludes appellate review except in circumstances amounting to plain error under NRS 178.602). [46] Id.; see also Olano, 507 U.S. at 734 , 113 S.Ct. 1770 ("In most cases, a court of appeals cannot correct the forfei | 1 | 1 |
Leonard v. Stategreen2 sentences2008However, in Harkness v. State, this court noted that objections to the prosecutor's general line of questioning or argument are sufficient to preserve the issue for appeal under harmless-error analysis. 107 Nev. 800 , 802 n. 1, 820 P.2d 759 , 760 n. 1 (1991). [45] See Green v. State, 119 Nev. 542, 545 , 80 P.3d 93, 95 (2003) (explaining that failure to object to a jury instruction precludes appellate review except in circumstances amounting to plain error under NRS 178.602). [46] Id.; see also Olano, 507 U.S. at 734 , 113 S.Ct. 1770 ("In most cases, a court of appeals cannot correct the forfei 2008However, in Harkness v. State, this court noted that objections to the prosecutor's general line of questioning or argument are sufficient to preserve the issue for appeal under harmless-error analysis. 107 Nev. 800 , 802 n. 1, 820 P.2d 759 , 760 n. 1 (1991). [45] See Green v. State, 119 Nev. 542, 545 , 80 P.3d 93, 95 (2003) (explaining that failure to object to a jury instruction precludes appellate review except in circumstances amounting to plain error under NRS 178.602). [46] Id.; see also Olano, 507 U.S. at 734 , 113 S.Ct. 1770 ("In most cases, a court of appeals cannot correct the forfei | 1 | 1 |
McGuire v. Stategreen2 sentences2008However, in Harkness v. State, this court noted that objections to the prosecutor's general line of questioning or argument are sufficient to preserve the issue for appeal under harmless-error analysis. 107 Nev. 800 , 802 n. 1, 820 P.2d 759 , 760 n. 1 (1991). [45] See Green v. State, 119 Nev. 542, 545 , 80 P.3d 93, 95 (2003) (explaining that failure to object to a jury instruction precludes appellate review except in circumstances amounting to plain error under NRS 178.602). [46] Id.; see also Olano, 507 U.S. at 734 , 113 S.Ct. 1770 ("In most cases, a court of appeals cannot correct the forfei 2008However, in Harkness v. State, this court noted that objections to the prosecutor's general line of questioning or argument are sufficient to preserve the issue for appeal under harmless-error analysis. 107 Nev. 800 , 802 n. 1, 820 P.2d 759 , 760 n. 1 (1991). [45] See Green v. State, 119 Nev. 542, 545 , 80 P.3d 93, 95 (2003) (explaining that failure to object to a jury instruction precludes appellate review except in circumstances amounting to plain error under NRS 178.602). [46] Id.; see also Olano, 507 U.S. at 734 , 113 S.Ct. 1770 ("In most cases, a court of appeals cannot correct the forfei | 1 | 1 |
Collier v. State of Nevadagreen2 sentences2008However, in Harkness v. State, this court noted that objections to the prosecutor's general line of questioning or argument are sufficient to preserve the issue for appeal under harmless-error analysis. 107 Nev. 800 , 802 n. 1, 820 P.2d 759 , 760 n. 1 (1991). [45] See Green v. State, 119 Nev. 542, 545 , 80 P.3d 93, 95 (2003) (explaining that failure to object to a jury instruction precludes appellate review except in circumstances amounting to plain error under NRS 178.602). [46] Id.; see also Olano, 507 U.S. at 734 , 113 S.Ct. 1770 ("In most cases, a court of appeals cannot correct the forfei 2008However, in Harkness v. State, this court noted that objections to the prosecutor's general line of questioning or argument are sufficient to preserve the issue for appeal under harmless-error analysis. 107 Nev. 800 , 802 n. 1, 820 P.2d 759 , 760 n. 1 (1991). [45] See Green v. State, 119 Nev. 542, 545 , 80 P.3d 93, 95 (2003) (explaining that failure to object to a jury instruction precludes appellate review except in circumstances amounting to plain error under NRS 178.602). [46] Id.; see also Olano, 507 U.S. at 734 , 113 S.Ct. 1770 ("In most cases, a court of appeals cannot correct the forfei | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Nevada. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Stewart v. United States
green
2 sentences2020Because no prosecutorial misconduct occurred, we conclude that Harris fails to demonstrate plain error, see Jeremias v. State, 134 Nev. 46 , 50, 412 P.3d 43, 48 (explaining that the appellant must demonstrate plain error, "meaning that it is clear under current law from a casual inspection of the record [,]" for this court to remedy a forfeited error), cert. denied, U.S. , 139 S. Ct. 415 (2018). 2019Op. 8, 412 P.3d 43, 48 ("Before this court will correct a forfeited error, an appellant must demonstrate that: (1) there was an 'error'; (2) the error is 'plain,' meaning that it is clear under current law from a casual inspection of the record; and (3) the error affected the defendant's substantial rights."), cert. denied, 139 S. Ct. 415 (2018). | 4 | 2019–2020 |
Harkness v. State
green
2 sentences2008However, in Harkness v. State, this court noted that objections to the prosecutor's general line of questioning or argument are sufficient to preserve the issue for appeal under harmless-error analysis. 107 Nev. 800 , 802 n. 1, 820 P.2d 759 , 760 n. 1 (1991). [45] See Green v. State, 119 Nev. 542, 545 , 80 P.3d 93, 95 (2003) (explaining that failure to object to a jury instruction precludes appellate review except in circumstances amounting to plain error under NRS 178.602). [46] Id.; see also Olano, 507 U.S. at 734 , 113 S.Ct. 1770 ("In most cases, a court of appeals cannot correct the forfei 2008However, in Harkness v. State, this court noted that objections to the prosecutor's general line of questioning or argument are sufficient to preserve the issue for appeal under harmless-error analysis. 107 Nev. 800 , 802 n. 1, 820 P.2d 759 , 760 n. 1 (1991). [45] See Green v. State, 119 Nev. 542, 545 , 80 P.3d 93, 95 (2003) (explaining that failure to object to a jury instruction precludes appellate review except in circumstances amounting to plain error under NRS 178.602). [46] Id.; see also Olano, 507 U.S. at 734 , 113 S.Ct. 1770 ("In most cases, a court of appeals cannot correct the forfei | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Gregg v. Georgia
green
2 sentences2008However, in Harkness v. State, this court noted that objections to the prosecutor's general line of questioning or argument are sufficient to preserve the issue for appeal under harmless-error analysis. 107 Nev. 800 , 802 n. 1, 820 P.2d 759 , 760 n. 1 (1991). [45] See Green v. State, 119 Nev. 542, 545 , 80 P.3d 93, 95 (2003) (explaining that failure to object to a jury instruction precludes appellate review except in circumstances amounting to plain error under NRS 178.602). [46] Id.; see also Olano, 507 U.S. at 734 , 113 S.Ct. 1770 ("In most cases, a court of appeals cannot correct the forfei 2008However, in Harkness v. State, this court noted that objections to the prosecutor's general line of questioning or argument are sufficient to preserve the issue for appeal under harmless-error analysis. 107 Nev. 800 , 802 n. 1, 820 P.2d 759 , 760 n. 1 (1991). [45] See Green v. State, 119 Nev. 542, 545 , 80 P.3d 93, 95 (2003) (explaining that failure to object to a jury instruction precludes appellate review except in circumstances amounting to plain error under NRS 178.602). [46] Id.; see also Olano, 507 U.S. at 734 , 113 S.Ct. 1770 ("In most cases, a court of appeals cannot correct the forfei | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
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.