Nevada Judiciary

Hamilton (Tamir) v. State of Nevada (Death Penalty)

            Carson City – 10:00 a.m. – Full court

Washoe Medical Center v. Vanderford (Betty)

            Carson City – 11:30 a.m. – Full court

State of Nevada v. Castaneda (Marty)

            Carson City – 1:30 p.m. – Full court

Hamilton (Tamir) v. State of Nevada (Death Penalty),

Docket No. 51739

In this case, Tamir Hamilton is appealing his conviction by a Washoe County jury of sexual assault and first-degree murder, and his sentence of death.  The charges arose from the rape and murder of a 16-year-old girl in her home in Sparks.  During jury selection, the prosecution used peremptory challenges to remove the only two African Americans on the jury panel.  Hamilton objected and argued that the removal of the two jurors violated Batson v. Kentucky.  The district court denied Hamilton’s objection, concluding that the State articulated race-neutral reasons for exercising the challenges.  At his trial, Hamilton presented an insanity defense.  ISSUES:  Did the district court err in denying Hamilton’s claims pursuant to Batson v. Kentucky?  Did the district court properly rule on evidentiary issues related to Hamilton’s insanity defense and properly instruct the jury on insanity?  (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.)

Washoe Medical Center v. Vanderford (Betty),

Docket No. 51755

This case arises out of serious permanent injuries that a child suffered after a series of visits to the emergency room of Renown Medical Center in Reno.  Betty Vanderford took her son to Renown’s emergency room on three different occasions.  Each time, a different doctor saw the child and either referred him to a different doctor or prescribed antibiotics.  After the child collapsed, he was rushed to the emergency room a fourth time and was diagnosed with meningitis.  The child suffered brain damage, blindness, and severe impairment of his motor skills.  Vanderford sued Renown and the doctors for medical malpractice.  The district court granted partial summary judgment to Vanderford, determining that Renown owed the child a duty to provide competent medical care that could not be delegated to independent contractor doctors, and Renown is therefore liable for the acts of the doctors.  Renown is now appealing the district court’s decision.  ISSUES:  Did Renown owe a nondelegable legal duty to provide competent emergency medical care to Vanderford’s son?  (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.)

State of Nevada v. Castaneda (Marty),

Docket No. 52911

This is an appeal of a district court ruling that Nevada’s indecent exposure statute is unconstitutional.  After being observed in front of the Clark County jail lifting his shirt, rubbing his chest, and pulling down his pants to expose his buttocks and genitals, Marty Castaneda was charged with two counts of indecent exposure.  Castaneda sought dismissal of the charges, arguing that the indecent exposure statute, NRS 201.220, is unconstitutionally vague and overbroad.  The district court granted the motion and the State has appealed that decision.  ISSUE:  Was the district court correct in concluding that NRS 201.220 is vague and overbroad?  (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.)