15 Nevada opinions name it 1 courts 1988–2021 2 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 |
|---|---|---|
Oade v. Stategreen2 sentences2021See Oade v. State, 114 Nev. 619, 621-22 , 960 P.2d 336, 338 (1998) (reviewing unpreserved allegations of judicial misconduct for clear error). 2021See Oade v. State, 114 Nev. 619, 621-22 , 960 P.2d 336, 338 (1998) (reviewing unpreserved allegations of judicial misconduct for clear error). | 2 | 2 |
King v. Stategreen1 sentence2015Appellant did not request the instruction he discusses on appeal and fails to demonstrate that the district court committed plain error, see King v. State, 116 Nev. 349 , 355, 998 P.2d 1172, 1176 (2000) (distinguishing Champion), particularly given the overwhelming evidence and the other credibility instructions given at trial. | 1 | 1 |
Evans v. Stategreen2 sentences2013See Valdez v. State, 124 Nev. 1172, 1190 , 196 P.3d 465, 477 (2008) (reviewing unpreserved claims for plain error); Evans v. State, 117 Nev. 609, 631 , 28 P.3d 498, 513 (2001) (IAN long as a prosecutor's remarks do not call attention to a SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 3 (0) 1947A defendant's failure to testify, it is permissible to comment on the failure of the defense to counter or explain evidence presented."). 2013See Valdez v. State, 124 Nev. 1172, 1190 , 196 P.3d 465, 477 (2008) (reviewing unpreserved claims for plain error); Evans v. State, 117 Nev. 609, 631 , 28 P.3d 498, 513 (2001) (IAN long as a prosecutor's remarks do not call attention to a SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 3 (0) 1947A defendant's failure to testify, it is permissible to comment on the failure of the defense to counter or explain evidence presented."). | 1 | 1 |
McLellan v. Stategreen2 sentences2013See Mclellan v. State, 124 Nev. 263, 267 , 182 P.3d 106, 109 (2008) (discussing plain-error review). 2013See Mclellan v. State, 124 Nev. 263, 267 , 182 P.3d 106, 109 (2008) (discussing plain-error review). | 1 | 1 |
Higgs v. Stategreen2 sentences2013See Higgs v. State, 126 Nev. 1, 9 , 222 P.3d 648, 653 (2010) (explaining that in order to demonstrate a district court’s abuse of discretion when denying a continuance, the challenging party must demonstrate the denial had a prejudicial effect on the case). 2 Truesdell claims the district court committed plain error by failing to sua sponte bifurcate the trial because the evidence relating to the TPO created substantial prejudice against him by implying prior criminal misconduct. 2013See Higgs v. State, 126 Nev. 1, 9 , 222 P.3d 648, 653 (2010) (explaining that in order to demonstrate a district court’s abuse of discretion when denying a continuance, the challenging party must demonstrate the denial had a prejudicial effect on the case). 2 Truesdell claims the district court committed plain error by failing to sua sponte bifurcate the trial because the evidence relating to the TPO created substantial prejudice against him by implying prior criminal misconduct. | 1 | 1 |
McKenna v. Stategreen2 sentences2013"The decision to admit particular evidence during the penalty phase is within the sound discretion of the district court and will not be disturbed absent an abuse of that discretion." McKenna v. State, 114 Nev. 1044, 1051 , 968 P.2d 739, 744 (1998). "[E]vidence may be presented concerning aggravating and mitigating circumstances relative to the offense, defendant or victim and on any other matter which the court deems relevant to the sentence, whether or not the evidence is ordinarily admissible." NRS 175.552(3). "[E]vidence of unrelated offenses for which a defendant has not been convicted is 2013"The decision to admit particular evidence during the penalty phase is within the sound discretion of the district court and will not be disturbed absent an abuse of that discretion." McKenna v. State, 114 Nev. 1044, 1051 , 968 P.2d 739, 744 (1998). "[E]vidence may be presented concerning aggravating and mitigating circumstances relative to the offense, defendant or victim and on any other matter which the court deems relevant to the sentence, whether or not the evidence is ordinarily admissible." NRS 175.552(3). "[E]vidence of unrelated offenses for which a defendant has not been convicted is | 1 | 1 |
Mason v. Stategreen2 sentences2013"The decision to admit particular evidence during the penalty phase is within the sound discretion of the district court and will not be disturbed absent an abuse of that discretion." McKenna v. State, 114 Nev. 1044, 1051 , 968 P.2d 739, 744 (1998). "[E]vidence may be presented concerning aggravating and mitigating circumstances relative to the offense, defendant or victim and on any other matter which the court deems relevant to the sentence, whether or not the evidence is ordinarily admissible." NRS 175.552(3). "[E]vidence of unrelated offenses for which a defendant has not been convicted is 2013"The decision to admit particular evidence during the penalty phase is within the sound discretion of the district court and will not be disturbed absent an abuse of that discretion." McKenna v. State, 114 Nev. 1044, 1051 , 968 P.2d 739, 744 (1998). "[E]vidence may be presented concerning aggravating and mitigating circumstances relative to the offense, defendant or victim and on any other matter which the court deems relevant to the sentence, whether or not the evidence is ordinarily admissible." NRS 175.552(3). "[E]vidence of unrelated offenses for which a defendant has not been convicted is | 1 | 1 |
Valdez v. Stategreen2 sentences2013See Valdez v. State, 124 Nev. 1172, 1190 , 196 P.3d 465, 477 (2008) (reviewing unpreserved claims for plain error); Evans v. State, 117 Nev. 609, 631 , 28 P.3d 498, 513 (2001) (IAN long as a prosecutor's remarks do not call attention to a SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 3 (0) 1947A defendant's failure to testify, it is permissible to comment on the failure of the defense to counter or explain evidence presented."). 2013See Valdez v. State, 124 Nev. 1172, 1190 , 196 P.3d 465, 477 (2008) (reviewing unpreserved claims for plain error); Evans v. State, 117 Nev. 609, 631 , 28 P.3d 498, 513 (2001) (IAN long as a prosecutor's remarks do not call attention to a SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 3 (0) 1947A defendant's failure to testify, it is permissible to comment on the failure of the defense to counter or explain evidence presented."). | 1 | 1 |
Bradley v. Romeogreen2 sentences1998See Bradley v. Romeo, 102 Nev. 103 , 716 P.2d 227 (1986) (concluding that this court may consider relevant issues sua sponte in order to prevent plain error, such as when a clearly controlling statute is not applied by the district court). 1998See Bradley v. Romeo, 102 Nev. 103 , 716 P.2d 227 (1986) (concluding that this court may consider relevant issues sua sponte in order to prevent plain error, such as when a clearly controlling statute is not applied by the district court). | 1 | 1 |
Williams v. Stategreen2 sentences1998See, e.g., Williams v. State, 113 Nev. 1008 , 945 P.2d 438 (1997). 1998See, e.g., Williams v. State, 113 Nev. 1008 , 945 P.2d 438 (1997). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Nevada. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Bruton v. United States
green
2 sentences2019He appeals, arguing solely that the district court committed plain error under Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123 (1968), by permitting Kayee's testimony regarding the statements Johnathan, a nontestifying codefendant, made to her. 2019He appeals, arguing solely that the district court committed plain error under Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123 (1968), by permitting Kayee's testimony regarding the statements Johnathan, a nontestifying codefendant, made to her. | 2 | 2019–2019 |
Clem v. State
green
2 sentences2018SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 7 (0) 1947A ce. forensic pathologist used [the two photographs] to describe [Del Prado's] wounds and explain the cause of death," this court concluded that "Archanian failed to show that the district court committed plain error in admitting [the evidence]." Id. 2018This court's observations about the two photographs indicate that the court determined that the photographs were relevant to explain the cause and manner of Del Prado's death and therefore there was no error. 4 See id. (discussing a similar photograph of Quiroga and observing that "[t]his court has repeatedly upheld the admission of autopsy photographs, even grisly ones, when they are used to demonstrate the cause of death and reflect the severity of wounds and the manner in which they were inflicted"). | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Frye v. United States
red
1 sentence2015Walsh next argues that the district court improperly admitted testimony about the results of narcotics field testing because it did "not meet the applicable 'general acceptance' standard for the admission of expert testimony" as set forth in Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013 (D.C. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Ramirez v. State
green
1 sentence2015Ramirez, 126 Nev. at 208 , 235 P.3d at 623 ; see also NRS 178.602; NRS 177.255. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Allen v. United States
green
1 sentence2011Saletta also contends that the district court committed plain error by (1) foiling to instruct the jury pursuant to Allen v. United States, 164 U.S. 492 (1896); (2) reusing the completed-but-repudiated verdict form; and (3) admitting irrelevant and prejudicial evidence. | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Winiarz v. State
green
2 sentences1988In Winiarz v. State, 104 Nev. 43 , 752 P.2d 761 (1988), this court concluded that it was error for a court to allow an expert to testify that the defendant was a murderer and thereby usurp the jury function. 1988In Winiarz v. State, 104 Nev. 43 , 752 P.2d 761 (1988), this court concluded that it was error for a court to allow an expert to testify that the defendant was a murderer and thereby usurp the jury function. | 1 | 1988–1988 |
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.