Nevada Judiciary

The Nevada Supreme Court will be back on the road this week, with a three-justice panel holding oral arguments in Sparks on Sept. 11.

It will be the first time in the state’s history that the high court has held arguments in Sparks, although arguments were held last year in Reno at the National Judicial College.

Justice Michael Cherry will head the panel that will hear two cases in the Sparks High School auditorium at 9:50 a.m. and 11:20 a.m.  The oral arguments are official court hearings and will be open to the general public as well as students and faculty.

Justice Cherry will be joined on the first case by Chief Justice James Hardesty and Justice Nancy Saitta.  On the second case, the panel will include Justices Cherry, Mark Gibbons, and Nancy Saitta. 

Justice Cherry said the Supreme Court’s decision to hold court away from the Court’s Carson City and Las Vegas courtrooms “provides unique access to the Court process and to the justices for residents as well as students.”

“Many Nevadans have never had a chance to observe Supreme Court oral arguments,” Justice Cherry said.  “We believe that holding court sessions across Nevada offers an interesting educational opportunity for our students and citizens, and promotes a better understanding of the role of the Judicial Branch of our government.”

“In addition to presiding over oral arguments, the justices will take time to interact with the students and answer their questions about the court process,” Justice Cherry said.  “Many people view the judicial process as complex and mysterious, but we hope to demystify the process.”

After the arguments, the justices will spend some time answering questions from the high school students in attendance.  Several hundred students are expected to attend Friday’s court session, which is a public hearing open to all interested residents

SPARKS ORAL ARGUMENTS

September 11, 2009

Bodden (Karen) v. State  

            9:50 a.m. – Justices Cherry, Saitta, and Hardesty

IGT v. Wild Game NG, LLC (doing business as The Siena Hotel Spa and Casino)

            11:20 a.m. – Justices Cherry, Saitta, and Gibbons

September 11, 2009

Bodden (Karen) v. State,

Docket No. 51537

In 2008, Bodden was convicted by a Douglas County jury of first-degree murder with the use of a deadly weapon for the 2006 shooting death of her husband, Rob, and was sentenced to 20 years to life in prison.  Bodden filed a motion for a new trial in district court, claiming her home was searched through a faulty search warrant and evidence obtained should have been suppressed.  She also contended that testimony involving DNA should not have been allowed.  The district court denied her motion.  Bodden is appealing both her conviction and the denial of her motion for new trial.  ISSUES:  Did the district court err in failing to suppress evidence obtained as a result of search warrants executed at Bodden’s residence?  Did the district court err in admitting testimony regarding the DNA profile of certain hair samples?  Did the State present sufficient evidence to support the jury’s verdict?  (Disclaimer:  This synopsis is intended to provide only general information about this case before the Nevada Supreme Court.  It is not intended to be all inclusive or reflect all positions of the parties.)

IGT v. Wild Game NG, LLC (doing business as The Siena Hotel Spa and Casino),

Docket No. 51338

IGT and Wild Game NG, which was doing business as The Siena Hotel Spa and Casino, had a series of contracts in which IGT was to provide slot machines and the use of gaming operating systems (for example, for a progressive jackpot and for cashless payment) in exchange for payment from Siena.  Alleging that Siena failed to make payments as required under the contracts, IGT sued Siena in Washoe County to collect the payments allegedly due and to repossess equipment.  Before trial began, IGT asked the district court to exclude evidence regarding a prior lawsuit in which Siena had sued Acres Gaming, a business closely related to IGT.  At the IGT trial, the court admitted evidence of a “strategic alliance” between IGT and Acres, but did not allow Siena to mention that it had sued Acres for breach of contract and prevailed against Acres.  After the trial, the district court entered a verdict for IGT.  Siena then filed a motion for a new trial.  After a hearing, the district court granted Siena’s motion for a new trial, finding that its handling of the Acres evidence prejudiced Siena because it prevented Siena from fully presenting its case.  IGT now appeals the order granting a new trial.  ISSUE:  Did the district court err in granting the motion for new trial?  (Disclaimer:  This synopsis is intended to provide only general information about this case before the Nevada Supreme Court.  It is not intended to be all inclusive or reflect all positions of the parties.)

JUSTICE ACROSS NEVADA

Historically, it is not unprecedented for the Supreme Court to hold sessions outside the state capital of Carson City.  Most frequently that has occurred in the Supreme Court’s Las Vegas courtroom, where oral arguments are held several times a year.   

Over the years, the Supreme Court has also presided over oral arguments in Elko, Ely, Winnemucca, Tonopah, and Virginia City.  The Supreme Court’s Northern Panel also conducted oral arguments at the National Judicial College in Reno.  The Southern Panel of the Supreme Court annually holds oral arguments at the William S. Boyd School of Law at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas.

While the Nevada Supreme Court is composed of seven members, most cases are decided by three-justice panels to best utilize the time of the justices.  The Nevada Supreme Court is one of the busiest appellate courts in the nation in part because Nevada has no intermediate appellate court (One of 11 states without such a court). 

The full Supreme Court hears oral arguments in the most important cases and all death penalty cases.