reviews instruction in Nevada

13 Nevada opinions name it 1 courts 1993–2024 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.

Followed or applied (23)

Case	Followed	Cited
Davidson v. Stategreen nev · 2008 · cited in 3 Nevada opinions naming this issue, 2016–2024 2 sentences 2024Davidson v. State, 124 Nev. 892, 896 , 192 P.3d 1185, 1189 (2008). 2024Davidson v. State, 124 Nev. 892, 896 , 192 P.3d 1185, 1189 (2008).	3	3
Jackson v. Virginiared scotus · 1979 · cited in 3 Nevada opinions naming this issue, 2019–2022 2 sentences 2022See id. (recognizing this court reviews a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution to determine whether "any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt" (quotation marks omitted)); see also Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979). 2019This court reviews a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution to determine whether "any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt." Mitchell v. State, 124 Nev. 807, 816 , 192 P.3d 721, 727 (2008) (quoting Koza v. State, 100 Nev. 245, 250 , 681 P.2d 44, 47 (1984)); see also Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979).	3	3
Mitchell v. Stategreen nev · 2008 · cited in 3 Nevada opinions naming this issue, 2019–2022 2 sentences 2022See id. (recognizing this court reviews a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution to determine whether "any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt" (quotation marks omitted)); see also Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979). 2019This court reviews a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution to determine whether "any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt." Mitchell v. State, 124 Nev. 807, 816 , 192 P.3d 721, 727 (2008) (quoting Koza v. State, 100 Nev. 245, 250 , 681 P.2d 44, 47 (1984)); see also Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979).	3	3
Koza v. Stategreen nev · 1984 · cited in 2 Nevada opinions naming this issue, 2019–2019 2 sentences 2019This court reviews a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution to determine whether "any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt." Mitchell v. State, 124 Nev. 807, 816 , 192 P.3d 721, 727 (2008) (quoting Koza v. State, 100 Nev. 245, 250 , 681 P.2d 44, 47 (1984)); see also Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979). 2019This court reviews a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution to determine whether "any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt." Mitchell v. State, 124 Nev. 807, 816 , 192 P.3d 721, 727 (2008) (quoting Koza v. State, 100 Nev. 245, 250 , 681 P.2d 44, 47 (1984)); see also Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979).	2	2
STATE VS. INZUNZA (RIGOBERTO)green nev · 2019 · cited in 1 Nevada opinions naming this issue, 2022–2022 2 sentences 2022See State v. Inzunza, 135 Nev. 513, 516, 454 P.3d 727, 730 (2019) (reviewing a district court's denial of "a motion to dismiss an indictment based on a speedy trial violation for an abuse of discretion"). 2022See State v. Inzunza, 135 Nev. 513 , 516, 454 P.3d 727, 730 (2019) (reviewing a district court's denial of "a motion to dismiss an indictment based on a speedy trial violation for an abuse of discretion").	1	1
In Re Discipline of Schaefergreen nev · 2001 · cited in 1 Nevada opinions naming this issue, 2018–2018 2 sentences 2018SCR 105(3)(b); In re Discipline of Schaefer, 117 Nev. 496, 515 , 25 P.3d 191, 204 (2001). 2018SCR 105(3)(b); In re Discipline of Schaefer, 117 Nev. 496, 515 , 25 P.3d 191, 204 (2001).	1	1
AGUILAR-RAYGOZA v. Stategreen nev · 2011 · cited in 1 Nevada opinions naming this issue, 2017–2017 2 sentences 2017Aguilar-Raygoza v. State, 127 Nev. 349, 352 , 255 P.3d 262, 264 (2011). 2017Aguilar-Raygoza v. State, 127 Nev. 349, 352 , 255 P.3d 262, 264 (2011).	1	1
Meyer v. Stategreen nev · 2003 · cited in 1 Nevada opinions naming this issue, 2008–2008 2 sentences 2008Flanagan v. State, 112 Nev. 1409, 1423 , 930 P.2d 691, 700 (1996) (holding patently prejudicial instruction error triggers court's sua sponte duty); Garcia v. State, 121 Nev. 327, 334 , 113 P.3d 836, 840 (2005) (holding that absent objection, this court reviews instruction error for plain error). [6] Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153, 188-93 , 96 S.Ct. 2909 , 49 L.Ed.2d 859 (1976). [7] See People v. Shannon, 147 Cal.App.2d 300 , 305 P.2d 101, 106 (1956) (noting that the jury may not consider the penalty when deciding guilt); Daniel v. State, 119 Nev. 498, 517 , 78 P.3d 890, 903 (2003) (stating th 2008Flanagan v. State, 112 Nev. 1409, 1423 , 930 P.2d 691, 700 (1996) (holding patently prejudicial instruction error triggers court's sua sponte duty); Garcia v. State, 121 Nev. 327, 334 , 113 P.3d 836, 840 (2005) (holding that absent objection, this court reviews instruction error for plain error). [6] Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153, 188-93 , 96 S.Ct. 2909 , 49 L.Ed.2d 859 (1976). [7] See People v. Shannon, 147 Cal.App.2d 300 , 305 P.2d 101, 106 (1956) (noting that the jury may not consider the penalty when deciding guilt); Daniel v. State, 119 Nev. 498, 517 , 78 P.3d 890, 903 (2003) (stating th	1	1
Daniel v. Stategreen nev · 2003 · cited in 1 Nevada opinions naming this issue, 2008–2008 2 sentences 2008Flanagan v. State, 112 Nev. 1409, 1423 , 930 P.2d 691, 700 (1996) (holding patently prejudicial instruction error triggers court's sua sponte duty); Garcia v. State, 121 Nev. 327, 334 , 113 P.3d 836, 840 (2005) (holding that absent objection, this court reviews instruction error for plain error). [6] Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153, 188-93 , 96 S.Ct. 2909 , 49 L.Ed.2d 859 (1976). [7] See People v. Shannon, 147 Cal.App.2d 300 , 305 P.2d 101, 106 (1956) (noting that the jury may not consider the penalty when deciding guilt); Daniel v. State, 119 Nev. 498, 517 , 78 P.3d 890, 903 (2003) (stating th 2008Flanagan v. State, 112 Nev. 1409, 1423 , 930 P.2d 691, 700 (1996) (holding patently prejudicial instruction error triggers court's sua sponte duty); Garcia v. State, 121 Nev. 327, 334 , 113 P.3d 836, 840 (2005) (holding that absent objection, this court reviews instruction error for plain error). [6] Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153, 188-93 , 96 S.Ct. 2909 , 49 L.Ed.2d 859 (1976). [7] See People v. Shannon, 147 Cal.App.2d 300 , 305 P.2d 101, 106 (1956) (noting that the jury may not consider the penalty when deciding guilt); Daniel v. State, 119 Nev. 498, 517 , 78 P.3d 890, 903 (2003) (stating th	1	1
United States v. Harlowgreen ca10 · 2006 · cited in 1 Nevada opinions naming this issue, 2008–2008 2 sentences 2008Flanagan v. State, 112 Nev. 1409, 1423 , 930 P.2d 691, 700 (1996) (holding patently prejudicial instruction error triggers court's sua sponte duty); Garcia v. State, 121 Nev. 327, 334 , 113 P.3d 836, 840 (2005) (holding that absent objection, this court reviews instruction error for plain error). [6] Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153, 188-93 , 96 S.Ct. 2909 , 49 L.Ed.2d 859 (1976). [7] See People v. Shannon, 147 Cal.App.2d 300 , 305 P.2d 101, 106 (1956) (noting that the jury may not consider the penalty when deciding guilt); Daniel v. State, 119 Nev. 498, 517 , 78 P.3d 890, 903 (2003) (stating th 2008Flanagan v. State, 112 Nev. 1409, 1423 , 930 P.2d 691, 700 (1996) (holding patently prejudicial instruction error triggers court's sua sponte duty); Garcia v. State, 121 Nev. 327, 334 , 113 P.3d 836, 840 (2005) (holding that absent objection, this court reviews instruction error for plain error). [6] Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153, 188-93 , 96 S.Ct. 2909 , 49 L.Ed.2d 859 (1976). [7] See People v. Shannon, 147 Cal.App.2d 300 , 305 P.2d 101, 106 (1956) (noting that the jury may not consider the penalty when deciding guilt); Daniel v. State, 119 Nev. 498, 517 , 78 P.3d 890, 903 (2003) (stating th	1	1
Garcia v. Stategreen nev · 2005 · cited in 1 Nevada opinions naming this issue, 2008–2008 2 sentences 2008Flanagan v. State, 112 Nev. 1409, 1423 , 930 P.2d 691, 700 (1996) (holding patently prejudicial instruction error triggers court's sua sponte duty); Garcia v. State, 121 Nev. 327, 334 , 113 P.3d 836, 840 (2005) (holding that absent objection, this court reviews instruction error for plain error). [6] Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153, 188-93 , 96 S.Ct. 2909 , 49 L.Ed.2d 859 (1976). [7] See People v. Shannon, 147 Cal.App.2d 300 , 305 P.2d 101, 106 (1956) (noting that the jury may not consider the penalty when deciding guilt); Daniel v. State, 119 Nev. 498, 517 , 78 P.3d 890, 903 (2003) (stating th 2008Flanagan v. State, 112 Nev. 1409, 1423 , 930 P.2d 691, 700 (1996) (holding patently prejudicial instruction error triggers court's sua sponte duty); Garcia v. State, 121 Nev. 327, 334 , 113 P.3d 836, 840 (2005) (holding that absent objection, this court reviews instruction error for plain error). [6] Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153, 188-93 , 96 S.Ct. 2909 , 49 L.Ed.2d 859 (1976). [7] See People v. Shannon, 147 Cal.App.2d 300 , 305 P.2d 101, 106 (1956) (noting that the jury may not consider the penalty when deciding guilt); Daniel v. State, 119 Nev. 498, 517 , 78 P.3d 890, 903 (2003) (stating th	1	1
People v. Shannongreen calctapp · 1956 · cited in 1 Nevada opinions naming this issue, 2008–2008 2 sentences 2008Flanagan v. State, 112 Nev. 1409, 1423 , 930 P.2d 691, 700 (1996) (holding patently prejudicial instruction error triggers court's sua sponte duty); Garcia v. State, 121 Nev. 327, 334 , 113 P.3d 836, 840 (2005) (holding that absent objection, this court reviews instruction error for plain error). [6] Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153, 188-93 , 96 S.Ct. 2909 , 49 L.Ed.2d 859 (1976). [7] See People v. Shannon, 147 Cal.App.2d 300 , 305 P.2d 101, 106 (1956) (noting that the jury may not consider the penalty when deciding guilt); Daniel v. State, 119 Nev. 498, 517 , 78 P.3d 890, 903 (2003) (stating th 2008Flanagan v. State, 112 Nev. 1409, 1423 , 930 P.2d 691, 700 (1996) (holding patently prejudicial instruction error triggers court's sua sponte duty); Garcia v. State, 121 Nev. 327, 334 , 113 P.3d 836, 840 (2005) (holding that absent objection, this court reviews instruction error for plain error). [6] Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153, 188-93 , 96 S.Ct. 2909 , 49 L.Ed.2d 859 (1976). [7] See People v. Shannon, 147 Cal.App.2d 300 , 305 P.2d 101, 106 (1956) (noting that the jury may not consider the penalty when deciding guilt); Daniel v. State, 119 Nev. 498, 517 , 78 P.3d 890, 903 (2003) (stating th	1	1
Chapman v. Californiared scotus · 1967 · cited in 1 Nevada opinions naming this issue, 2008–2008 2 sentences 2008Flanagan v. State, 112 Nev. 1409, 1423 , 930 P.2d 691, 700 (1996) (holding patently prejudicial instruction error triggers court's sua sponte duty); Garcia v. State, 121 Nev. 327, 334 , 113 P.3d 836, 840 (2005) (holding that absent objection, this court reviews instruction error for plain error). [6] Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153, 188-93 , 96 S.Ct. 2909 , 49 L.Ed.2d 859 (1976). [7] See People v. Shannon, 147 Cal.App.2d 300 , 305 P.2d 101, 106 (1956) (noting that the jury may not consider the penalty when deciding guilt); Daniel v. State, 119 Nev. 498, 517 , 78 P.3d 890, 903 (2003) (stating th 2008Flanagan v. State, 112 Nev. 1409, 1423 , 930 P.2d 691, 700 (1996) (holding patently prejudicial instruction error triggers court's sua sponte duty); Garcia v. State, 121 Nev. 327, 334 , 113 P.3d 836, 840 (2005) (holding that absent objection, this court reviews instruction error for plain error). [6] Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153, 188-93 , 96 S.Ct. 2909 , 49 L.Ed.2d 859 (1976). [7] See People v. Shannon, 147 Cal.App.2d 300 , 305 P.2d 101, 106 (1956) (noting that the jury may not consider the penalty when deciding guilt); Daniel v. State, 119 Nev. 498, 517 , 78 P.3d 890, 903 (2003) (stating th	1	1
Hernandez v. Stategreen nev · 2002 · cited in 1 Nevada opinions naming this issue, 2008–2008 2 sentences 2008But see Harris v. State, 90 Nev. 172, 173 , 521 P.2d 367, 367-68 (1974) (applying the Chapman standard to alleged prosecutorial misconduct regarding presenting testimony and displaying evidence with an insufficient foundation). [39] See Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619, 643 , 113 S.Ct. 1710 , 123 L.Ed.2d 353 (1993) (Stevens, J., concurring) (observing that because both standards require the application of judgment, "the difference is less significant than it might seem"). [40] See Harlow, 444 F.3d at 1266 (noting that improper vouching for witnesses constitutes an error of nonconstitutional 2008But see Harris v. State, 90 Nev. 172, 173 , 521 P.2d 367, 367-68 (1974) (applying the Chapman standard to alleged prosecutorial misconduct regarding presenting testimony and displaying evidence with an insufficient foundation). [39] See Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619, 643 , 113 S.Ct. 1710 , 123 L.Ed.2d 353 (1993) (Stevens, J., concurring) (observing that because both standards require the application of judgment, "the difference is less significant than it might seem"). [40] See Harlow, 444 F.3d at 1266 (noting that improper vouching for witnesses constitutes an error of nonconstitutional	1	1
Bridges v. Stategreen nev · 2000 · cited in 1 Nevada opinions naming this issue, 2008–2008 2 sentences 2008Flanagan v. State, 112 Nev. 1409, 1423 , 930 P.2d 691, 700 (1996) (holding patently prejudicial instruction error triggers court's sua sponte duty); Garcia v. State, 121 Nev. 327, 334 , 113 P.3d 836, 840 (2005) (holding that absent objection, this court reviews instruction error for plain error). [6] Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153, 188-93 , 96 S.Ct. 2909 , 49 L.Ed.2d 859 (1976). [7] See People v. Shannon, 147 Cal.App.2d 300 , 305 P.2d 101, 106 (1956) (noting that the jury may not consider the penalty when deciding guilt); Daniel v. State, 119 Nev. 498, 517 , 78 P.3d 890, 903 (2003) (stating th 2008But see Harris v. State, 90 Nev. 172, 173 , 521 P.2d 367, 367-68 (1974) (applying the Chapman standard to alleged prosecutorial misconduct regarding presenting testimony and displaying evidence with an insufficient foundation). [39] See Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619, 643 , 113 S.Ct. 1710 , 123 L.Ed.2d 353 (1993) (Stevens, J., concurring) (observing that because both standards require the application of judgment, "the difference is less significant than it might seem"). [40] See Harlow, 444 F.3d at 1266 (noting that improper vouching for witnesses constitutes an error of nonconstitutional	1	1
Holland v. Stategreen miss · 1991 · cited in 1 Nevada opinions naming this issue, 2008–2008 2 sentences 2008Flanagan v. State, 112 Nev. 1409, 1423 , 930 P.2d 691, 700 (1996) (holding patently prejudicial instruction error triggers court's sua sponte duty); Garcia v. State, 121 Nev. 327, 334 , 113 P.3d 836, 840 (2005) (holding that absent objection, this court reviews instruction error for plain error). [6] Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153, 188-93 , 96 S.Ct. 2909 , 49 L.Ed.2d 859 (1976). [7] See People v. Shannon, 147 Cal.App.2d 300 , 305 P.2d 101, 106 (1956) (noting that the jury may not consider the penalty when deciding guilt); Daniel v. State, 119 Nev. 498, 517 , 78 P.3d 890, 903 (2003) (stating th 2008Flanagan v. State, 112 Nev. 1409, 1423 , 930 P.2d 691, 700 (1996) (holding patently prejudicial instruction error triggers court's sua sponte duty); Garcia v. State, 121 Nev. 327, 334 , 113 P.3d 836, 840 (2005) (holding that absent objection, this court reviews instruction error for plain error). [6] Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153, 188-93 , 96 S.Ct. 2909 , 49 L.Ed.2d 859 (1976). [7] See People v. Shannon, 147 Cal.App.2d 300 , 305 P.2d 101, 106 (1956) (noting that the jury may not consider the penalty when deciding guilt); Daniel v. State, 119 Nev. 498, 517 , 78 P.3d 890, 903 (2003) (stating th	1	1
Coleman v. Stategreen nev · 1995 · cited in 1 Nevada opinions naming this issue, 2008–2008 2 sentences 2008Flanagan v. State, 112 Nev. 1409, 1423 , 930 P.2d 691, 700 (1996) (holding patently prejudicial instruction error triggers court's sua sponte duty); Garcia v. State, 121 Nev. 327, 334 , 113 P.3d 836, 840 (2005) (holding that absent objection, this court reviews instruction error for plain error). [6] Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153, 188-93 , 96 S.Ct. 2909 , 49 L.Ed.2d 859 (1976). [7] See People v. Shannon, 147 Cal.App.2d 300 , 305 P.2d 101, 106 (1956) (noting that the jury may not consider the penalty when deciding guilt); Daniel v. State, 119 Nev. 498, 517 , 78 P.3d 890, 903 (2003) (stating th 2008Flanagan v. State, 112 Nev. 1409, 1423 , 930 P.2d 691, 700 (1996) (holding patently prejudicial instruction error triggers court's sua sponte duty); Garcia v. State, 121 Nev. 327, 334 , 113 P.3d 836, 840 (2005) (holding that absent objection, this court reviews instruction error for plain error). [6] Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153, 188-93 , 96 S.Ct. 2909 , 49 L.Ed.2d 859 (1976). [7] See People v. Shannon, 147 Cal.App.2d 300 , 305 P.2d 101, 106 (1956) (noting that the jury may not consider the penalty when deciding guilt); Daniel v. State, 119 Nev. 498, 517 , 78 P.3d 890, 903 (2003) (stating th	1	1
Gregg v. Georgiagreen scotus · 1976 · cited in 1 Nevada opinions naming this issue, 2008–2008 2 sentences 2008Flanagan v. State, 112 Nev. 1409, 1423 , 930 P.2d 691, 700 (1996) (holding patently prejudicial instruction error triggers court's sua sponte duty); Garcia v. State, 121 Nev. 327, 334 , 113 P.3d 836, 840 (2005) (holding that absent objection, this court reviews instruction error for plain error). [6] Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153, 188-93 , 96 S.Ct. 2909 , 49 L.Ed.2d 859 (1976). [7] See People v. Shannon, 147 Cal.App.2d 300 , 305 P.2d 101, 106 (1956) (noting that the jury may not consider the penalty when deciding guilt); Daniel v. State, 119 Nev. 498, 517 , 78 P.3d 890, 903 (2003) (stating th 2008Flanagan v. State, 112 Nev. 1409, 1423 , 930 P.2d 691, 700 (1996) (holding patently prejudicial instruction error triggers court's sua sponte duty); Garcia v. State, 121 Nev. 327, 334 , 113 P.3d 836, 840 (2005) (holding that absent objection, this court reviews instruction error for plain error). [6] Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153, 188-93 , 96 S.Ct. 2909 , 49 L.Ed.2d 859 (1976). [7] See People v. Shannon, 147 Cal.App.2d 300 , 305 P.2d 101, 106 (1956) (noting that the jury may not consider the penalty when deciding guilt); Daniel v. State, 119 Nev. 498, 517 , 78 P.3d 890, 903 (2003) (stating th	1	1
Leslie v. Wardengreen nev · 2002 · cited in 1 Nevada opinions naming this issue, 2008–2008 2 sentences 2008Flanagan v. State, 112 Nev. 1409, 1423 , 930 P.2d 691, 700 (1996) (holding patently prejudicial instruction error triggers court's sua sponte duty); Garcia v. State, 121 Nev. 327, 334 , 113 P.3d 836, 840 (2005) (holding that absent objection, this court reviews instruction error for plain error). [6] Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153, 188-93 , 96 S.Ct. 2909 , 49 L.Ed.2d 859 (1976). [7] See People v. Shannon, 147 Cal.App.2d 300 , 305 P.2d 101, 106 (1956) (noting that the jury may not consider the penalty when deciding guilt); Daniel v. State, 119 Nev. 498, 517 , 78 P.3d 890, 903 (2003) (stating th 2008Flanagan v. State, 112 Nev. 1409, 1423 , 930 P.2d 691, 700 (1996) (holding patently prejudicial instruction error triggers court's sua sponte duty); Garcia v. State, 121 Nev. 327, 334 , 113 P.3d 836, 840 (2005) (holding that absent objection, this court reviews instruction error for plain error). [6] Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153, 188-93 , 96 S.Ct. 2909 , 49 L.Ed.2d 859 (1976). [7] See People v. Shannon, 147 Cal.App.2d 300 , 305 P.2d 101, 106 (1956) (noting that the jury may not consider the penalty when deciding guilt); Daniel v. State, 119 Nev. 498, 517 , 78 P.3d 890, 903 (2003) (stating th	1	1
Lane v. Stategreen nev · 1994 · cited in 1 Nevada opinions naming this issue, 2008–2008 2 sentences 2008Flanagan v. State, 112 Nev. 1409, 1423 , 930 P.2d 691, 700 (1996) (holding patently prejudicial instruction error triggers court's sua sponte duty); Garcia v. State, 121 Nev. 327, 334 , 113 P.3d 836, 840 (2005) (holding that absent objection, this court reviews instruction error for plain error). [6] Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153, 188-93 , 96 S.Ct. 2909 , 49 L.Ed.2d 859 (1976). [7] See People v. Shannon, 147 Cal.App.2d 300 , 305 P.2d 101, 106 (1956) (noting that the jury may not consider the penalty when deciding guilt); Daniel v. State, 119 Nev. 498, 517 , 78 P.3d 890, 903 (2003) (stating th 2008Flanagan v. State, 112 Nev. 1409, 1423 , 930 P.2d 691, 700 (1996) (holding patently prejudicial instruction error triggers court's sua sponte duty); Garcia v. State, 121 Nev. 327, 334 , 113 P.3d 836, 840 (2005) (holding that absent objection, this court reviews instruction error for plain error). [6] Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153, 188-93 , 96 S.Ct. 2909 , 49 L.Ed.2d 859 (1976). [7] See People v. Shannon, 147 Cal.App.2d 300 , 305 P.2d 101, 106 (1956) (noting that the jury may not consider the penalty when deciding guilt); Daniel v. State, 119 Nev. 498, 517 , 78 P.3d 890, 903 (2003) (stating th	1	1
Tavares v. Stategreen nev · 2001 · cited in 1 Nevada opinions naming this issue, 2008–2008 2 sentences 2008Flanagan v. State, 112 Nev. 1409, 1423 , 930 P.2d 691, 700 (1996) (holding patently prejudicial instruction error triggers court's sua sponte duty); Garcia v. State, 121 Nev. 327, 334 , 113 P.3d 836, 840 (2005) (holding that absent objection, this court reviews instruction error for plain error). [6] Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153, 188-93 , 96 S.Ct. 2909 , 49 L.Ed.2d 859 (1976). [7] See People v. Shannon, 147 Cal.App.2d 300 , 305 P.2d 101, 106 (1956) (noting that the jury may not consider the penalty when deciding guilt); Daniel v. State, 119 Nev. 498, 517 , 78 P.3d 890, 903 (2003) (stating th 2008Flanagan v. State, 112 Nev. 1409, 1423 , 930 P.2d 691, 700 (1996) (holding patently prejudicial instruction error triggers court's sua sponte duty); Garcia v. State, 121 Nev. 327, 334 , 113 P.3d 836, 840 (2005) (holding that absent objection, this court reviews instruction error for plain error). [6] Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153, 188-93 , 96 S.Ct. 2909 , 49 L.Ed.2d 859 (1976). [7] See People v. Shannon, 147 Cal.App.2d 300 , 305 P.2d 101, 106 (1956) (noting that the jury may not consider the penalty when deciding guilt); Daniel v. State, 119 Nev. 498, 517 , 78 P.3d 890, 903 (2003) (stating th	1	1
Flanagan v. Stategreen nev · 1996 · cited in 1 Nevada opinions naming this issue, 2008–2008 2 sentences 2008Flanagan v. State, 112 Nev. 1409, 1423 , 930 P.2d 691, 700 (1996) (holding patently prejudicial instruction error triggers court's sua sponte duty); Garcia v. State, 121 Nev. 327, 334 , 113 P.3d 836, 840 (2005) (holding that absent objection, this court reviews instruction error for plain error). [6] Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153, 188-93 , 96 S.Ct. 2909 , 49 L.Ed.2d 859 (1976). [7] See People v. Shannon, 147 Cal.App.2d 300 , 305 P.2d 101, 106 (1956) (noting that the jury may not consider the penalty when deciding guilt); Daniel v. State, 119 Nev. 498, 517 , 78 P.3d 890, 903 (2003) (stating th 2008Flanagan v. State, 112 Nev. 1409, 1423 , 930 P.2d 691, 700 (1996) (holding patently prejudicial instruction error triggers court's sua sponte duty); Garcia v. State, 121 Nev. 327, 334 , 113 P.3d 836, 840 (2005) (holding that absent objection, this court reviews instruction error for plain error). [6] Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153, 188-93 , 96 S.Ct. 2909 , 49 L.Ed.2d 859 (1976). [7] See People v. Shannon, 147 Cal.App.2d 300 , 305 P.2d 101, 106 (1956) (noting that the jury may not consider the penalty when deciding guilt); Daniel v. State, 119 Nev. 498, 517 , 78 P.3d 890, 903 (2003) (stating th	1	1
Dawson v. Stategreen nev · 1992 · cited in 1 Nevada opinions naming this issue, 1993–1993	1	1

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (4)

Case	Negative	Cited
United States v. Harlowgreen ca10 · 2006 · cited in 1 Nevada opinions naming this issue, 2008–2008 2 sentences 2008Flanagan v. State, 112 Nev. 1409, 1423 , 930 P.2d 691, 700 (1996) (holding patently prejudicial instruction error triggers court's sua sponte duty); Garcia v. State, 121 Nev. 327, 334 , 113 P.3d 836, 840 (2005) (holding that absent objection, this court reviews instruction error for plain error). [6] Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153, 188-93 , 96 S.Ct. 2909 , 49 L.Ed.2d 859 (1976). [7] See People v. Shannon, 147 Cal.App.2d 300 , 305 P.2d 101, 106 (1956) (noting that the jury may not consider the penalty when deciding guilt); Daniel v. State, 119 Nev. 498, 517 , 78 P.3d 890, 903 (2003) (stating th 2008Flanagan v. State, 112 Nev. 1409, 1423 , 930 P.2d 691, 700 (1996) (holding patently prejudicial instruction error triggers court's sua sponte duty); Garcia v. State, 121 Nev. 327, 334 , 113 P.3d 836, 840 (2005) (holding that absent objection, this court reviews instruction error for plain error). [6] Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153, 188-93 , 96 S.Ct. 2909 , 49 L.Ed.2d 859 (1976). [7] See People v. Shannon, 147 Cal.App.2d 300 , 305 P.2d 101, 106 (1956) (noting that the jury may not consider the penalty when deciding guilt); Daniel v. State, 119 Nev. 498, 517 , 78 P.3d 890, 903 (2003) (stating th	1	1
Harris v. Statered nev · 1974 · cited in 1 Nevada opinions naming this issue, 2008–2008 2 sentences 2008But see Harris v. State, 90 Nev. 172, 173 , 521 P.2d 367, 367-68 (1974) (applying the Chapman standard to alleged prosecutorial misconduct regarding presenting testimony and displaying evidence with an insufficient foundation). [39] See Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619, 643 , 113 S.Ct. 1710 , 123 L.Ed.2d 353 (1993) (Stevens, J., concurring) (observing that because both standards require the application of judgment, "the difference is less significant than it might seem"). [40] See Harlow, 444 F.3d at 1266 (noting that improper vouching for witnesses constitutes an error of nonconstitutional 2008But see Harris v. State, 90 Nev. 172, 173 , 521 P.2d 367, 367-68 (1974) (applying the Chapman standard to alleged prosecutorial misconduct regarding presenting testimony and displaying evidence with an insufficient foundation). [39] See Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619, 643 , 113 S.Ct. 1710 , 123 L.Ed.2d 353 (1993) (Stevens, J., concurring) (observing that because both standards require the application of judgment, "the difference is less significant than it might seem"). [40] See Harlow, 444 F.3d at 1266 (noting that improper vouching for witnesses constitutes an error of nonconstitutional	1	1
Brecht v. Abrahamsongreen scotus · 1993 · cited in 1 Nevada opinions naming this issue, 2008–2008 2 sentences 2008But see Harris v. State, 90 Nev. 172, 173 , 521 P.2d 367, 367-68 (1974) (applying the Chapman standard to alleged prosecutorial misconduct regarding presenting testimony and displaying evidence with an insufficient foundation). [39] See Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619, 643 , 113 S.Ct. 1710 , 123 L.Ed.2d 353 (1993) (Stevens, J., concurring) (observing that because both standards require the application of judgment, "the difference is less significant than it might seem"). [40] See Harlow, 444 F.3d at 1266 (noting that improper vouching for witnesses constitutes an error of nonconstitutional 2008But see Harris v. State, 90 Nev. 172, 173 , 521 P.2d 367, 367-68 (1974) (applying the Chapman standard to alleged prosecutorial misconduct regarding presenting testimony and displaying evidence with an insufficient foundation). [39] See Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619, 643 , 113 S.Ct. 1710 , 123 L.Ed.2d 353 (1993) (Stevens, J., concurring) (observing that because both standards require the application of judgment, "the difference is less significant than it might seem"). [40] See Harlow, 444 F.3d at 1266 (noting that improper vouching for witnesses constitutes an error of nonconstitutional	1	1
Chapman v. Californiared scotus · 1967 · cited in 1 Nevada opinions naming this issue, 2008–2008 2 sentences 2008Flanagan v. State, 112 Nev. 1409, 1423 , 930 P.2d 691, 700 (1996) (holding patently prejudicial instruction error triggers court's sua sponte duty); Garcia v. State, 121 Nev. 327, 334 , 113 P.3d 836, 840 (2005) (holding that absent objection, this court reviews instruction error for plain error). [6] Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153, 188-93 , 96 S.Ct. 2909 , 49 L.Ed.2d 859 (1976). [7] See People v. Shannon, 147 Cal.App.2d 300 , 305 P.2d 101, 106 (1956) (noting that the jury may not consider the penalty when deciding guilt); Daniel v. State, 119 Nev. 498, 517 , 78 P.3d 890, 903 (2003) (stating th 2008Flanagan v. State, 112 Nev. 1409, 1423 , 930 P.2d 691, 700 (1996) (holding patently prejudicial instruction error triggers court's sua sponte duty); Garcia v. State, 121 Nev. 327, 334 , 113 P.3d 836, 840 (2005) (holding that absent objection, this court reviews instruction error for plain error). [6] Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153, 188-93 , 96 S.Ct. 2909 , 49 L.Ed.2d 859 (1976). [7] See People v. Shannon, 147 Cal.App.2d 300 , 305 P.2d 101, 106 (1956) (noting that the jury may not consider the penalty when deciding guilt); Daniel v. State, 119 Nev. 498, 517 , 78 P.3d 890, 903 (2003) (stating th	1	1

Also cited on this issue (7)

Case	Cited	Years
Jackson v. State green nev · 2012 2 sentences 2014Id. at , 291 P.3d at 1277 . 2014Id. at , 291 P.3d at 1277 .	2	2014–2014
United States v. Olano green scotus · 1993 2 sentences 2008But see Harris v. State, 90 Nev. 172, 173 , 521 P.2d 367, 367-68 (1974) (applying the Chapman standard to alleged prosecutorial misconduct regarding presenting testimony and displaying evidence with an insufficient foundation). [39] See Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619, 643 , 113 S.Ct. 1710 , 123 L.Ed.2d 353 (1993) (Stevens, J., concurring) (observing that because both standards require the application of judgment, "the difference is less significant than it might seem"). [40] See Harlow, 444 F.3d at 1266 (noting that improper vouching for witnesses constitutes an error of nonconstitutional 2008But see Harris v. State, 90 Nev. 172, 173 , 521 P.2d 367, 367-68 (1974) (applying the Chapman standard to alleged prosecutorial misconduct regarding presenting testimony and displaying evidence with an insufficient foundation). [39] See Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619, 643 , 113 S.Ct. 1710 , 123 L.Ed.2d 353 (1993) (Stevens, J., concurring) (observing that because both standards require the application of judgment, "the difference is less significant than it might seem"). [40] See Harlow, 444 F.3d at 1266 (noting that improper vouching for witnesses constitutes an error of nonconstitutional	1	2008–2008
Kotteakos v. United States green scotus · 1946 2 sentences 2008Flanagan v. State, 112 Nev. 1409, 1423 , 930 P.2d 691, 700 (1996) (holding patently prejudicial instruction error triggers court's sua sponte duty); Garcia v. State, 121 Nev. 327, 334 , 113 P.3d 836, 840 (2005) (holding that absent objection, this court reviews instruction error for plain error). [6] Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153, 188-93 , 96 S.Ct. 2909 , 49 L.Ed.2d 859 (1976). [7] See People v. Shannon, 147 Cal.App.2d 300 , 305 P.2d 101, 106 (1956) (noting that the jury may not consider the penalty when deciding guilt); Daniel v. State, 119 Nev. 498, 517 , 78 P.3d 890, 903 (2003) (stating th 2008Flanagan v. State, 112 Nev. 1409, 1423 , 930 P.2d 691, 700 (1996) (holding patently prejudicial instruction error triggers court's sua sponte duty); Garcia v. State, 121 Nev. 327, 334 , 113 P.3d 836, 840 (2005) (holding that absent objection, this court reviews instruction error for plain error). [6] Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153, 188-93 , 96 S.Ct. 2909 , 49 L.Ed.2d 859 (1976). [7] See People v. Shannon, 147 Cal.App.2d 300 , 305 P.2d 101, 106 (1956) (noting that the jury may not consider the penalty when deciding guilt); Daniel v. State, 119 Nev. 498, 517 , 78 P.3d 890, 903 (2003) (stating th	1	2008–2008
Donnelly v. DeChristoforo green scotus · 1974 2 sentences 2008But see Harris v. State, 90 Nev. 172, 173 , 521 P.2d 367, 367-68 (1974) (applying the Chapman standard to alleged prosecutorial misconduct regarding presenting testimony and displaying evidence with an insufficient foundation). [39] See Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619, 643 , 113 S.Ct. 1710 , 123 L.Ed.2d 353 (1993) (Stevens, J., concurring) (observing that because both standards require the application of judgment, "the difference is less significant than it might seem"). [40] See Harlow, 444 F.3d at 1266 (noting that improper vouching for witnesses constitutes an error of nonconstitutional 2008But see Harris v. State, 90 Nev. 172, 173 , 521 P.2d 367, 367-68 (1974) (applying the Chapman standard to alleged prosecutorial misconduct regarding presenting testimony and displaying evidence with an insufficient foundation). [39] See Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619, 643 , 113 S.Ct. 1710 , 123 L.Ed.2d 353 (1993) (Stevens, J., concurring) (observing that because both standards require the application of judgment, "the difference is less significant than it might seem"). [40] See Harlow, 444 F.3d at 1266 (noting that improper vouching for witnesses constitutes an error of nonconstitutional	1	2008–2008
Darden v. Wainwright green scotus · 1986 2 sentences 2008But see Harris v. State, 90 Nev. 172, 173 , 521 P.2d 367, 367-68 (1974) (applying the Chapman standard to alleged prosecutorial misconduct regarding presenting testimony and displaying evidence with an insufficient foundation). [39] See Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619, 643 , 113 S.Ct. 1710 , 123 L.Ed.2d 353 (1993) (Stevens, J., concurring) (observing that because both standards require the application of judgment, "the difference is less significant than it might seem"). [40] See Harlow, 444 F.3d at 1266 (noting that improper vouching for witnesses constitutes an error of nonconstitutional 2008But see Harris v. State, 90 Nev. 172, 173 , 521 P.2d 367, 367-68 (1974) (applying the Chapman standard to alleged prosecutorial misconduct regarding presenting testimony and displaying evidence with an insufficient foundation). [39] See Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619, 643 , 113 S.Ct. 1710 , 123 L.Ed.2d 353 (1993) (Stevens, J., concurring) (observing that because both standards require the application of judgment, "the difference is less significant than it might seem"). [40] See Harlow, 444 F.3d at 1266 (noting that improper vouching for witnesses constitutes an error of nonconstitutional	1	2008–2008
Strickland v. Washington green scotus · 1984	1	1993–1993
Warden, Nevada State Prison v. Lyons green nev · 1984 2 sentences 1993This court reviews a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel under the "reasonably effective assistance" standard enunciated by the United States Supreme Court in Strickland and adopted by this court in Warden v. Lyons, 100 Nev. 430 , 683 P.2d 504 (1984); see Dawson v. State, 108 Nev. 112, 115 , 825 P.2d 593, 595 (1992). 1993This court reviews a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel under the "reasonably effective assistance" standard enunciated by the United States Supreme Court in Strickland and adopted by this court in Warden v. Lyons, 100 Nev. 430 , 683 P.2d 504 (1984); see Dawson v. State, 108 Nev. 112, 115 , 825 P.2d 593, 595 (1992).	1	1993–1993

Statutes the citing opinions construe

NV § Nev. Rev. Stat. § 200.030 (4)

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.

Where else courts name it

MI 138 (1984–2026) TN 125 (1997–2024) OH 51 (1999–2025) WA 33 (1993–2025) IL 33 (2006–2026) RI 30 (2006–2026) PA 23 (2008–2026) MS 22 (1994–2024) ID 17 (2001–2023) IN 14 (1981–2016) NC 13 (2010–2022) NV 13 (1993–2024) KS 11 (2005–2026) VA 11 (2017–2024) NM 11 (1998–2023) NJ 9 (2017–2025) FL 8 (1985–2025) CT 8 (1995–2016) IA 7 (1987–2017) MO 6 (1988–2013) DE 6 (2017–2025) MD 6 (2006–2019) ND 6 (2011–2022) TX 6 (2004–2015) MT 6 (1987–2021) ME 6 (2000–2025) VI 5 (2010–2012) SC 5 (1986–2024) MN 5 (2001–2015) OK 5 (2011–2017) GA 4 (2019–2025) WI 4 (2019–2023) AZ 3 (2024–2025) CA 3 (1958–2022) DC 3 (1983–2019) AL 2 (1949–2014) OR 2 (2000–2005)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check