Nevada Judiciary

The Nevada Supreme Court will be in Las Vegas this week for three days of oral arguments at three different locations, including the first time ever at a Las Vegas high school.

The full court will hold oral arguments at Bishop Gorman High School in Las Vegas on February 9 and a three-justice Supreme Court panel will be returning to the William S. Boyd School of Law at UNLV on February 10.  The Supreme Court has regularly held arguments at Boyd Law School since its founding.

Another panel – composed of Justices Michael Cherry, Nancy Saitta, and Mark Gibbons – will conduct oral arguments on February 10 in the Supreme Court’s Las Vegas courtroom at the Regional Justice Center.

The panel that is holding arguments at UNLV – Justices James W. Hardesty, Michael Douglas, and Kristina Pickering (Chief Justice Parraguirre will replace Justice Douglas on one case) – will also preside over oral at the Regional Justice Center on February 11.

(Synopses of the cases are below)

“We have been taking the Supreme Court on the road regularly for several years because it not only provides a unique educational opportunity, but offers access to the least understood branch of government,” said Chief Justice Ron Parraguirre. 

“We hope that by holding oral arguments in our schools and answering questions from the students after the session, we can somewhat demystify the process,” Chief Justice Parraguirre said.  “What our courts do is extremely important and the Supreme Court’s role is a vital part of the check-and-balance system to ensure that justice is served.”

“Although live webcasts of most Supreme Court oral arguments are accessible on our website, many Nevadans – and most students – do not have an opportunity to watch the Court in action,” Chief Justice Parraguirre said.  “The students at these oral arguments will have the rare opportunity to question the justices about the appellate court process.”

The justices cannot answer questions about the cases because of ethical rules.

Two arguments are scheduled for Bishop Gorman High School on February 9.  The first (10 a.m.) involves legal issues surrounding the alleged mishandling of body parts of a man who died after consuming a lethal dose of alcohol and drugs at a Las Vegas bachelor party.  The second (11 a.m.) is a murder case that involves treaty issues between the United States and Canada.

Following the arguments, the justices will spend some time answering questions from the students attending the court session, which is a public hearing open to all interested residents.

Chief Justice Parraguirre said that “Bishop Gorman High School was chosen because of its extraordinary law-related programs and the national successes they have had in their mock trial competitions and the We The People program.” 

Bishop Gorman High School, which is a college preparatory high school, placed fifth nationally in the 2009 mock trial competition and was state champion in mock trial competition in 2003, 2008, and 2009. 

The high school has also been a state finalist in the We The People competition, in which students testify before a panel of judges at a simulated congressional hearing about American constitutional principles and relevant historical and contemporary government and Constitutional issues. 

Bishop Gorman High School offers students criminal justice and constitutional government classes as part of its intensive curriculum.

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 Tonopah, Elko, Spring Creek, Virginia City, Ely, Winnemucca, and Sparks.  The Supreme Court’s Northern Panel also conducted oral arguments at the National Judicial College in Reno.  The Southern Panel of the Supreme Court regularly 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.

GORMAN HIGH SCHOOL ARGUMENTS

(Full Court)

Cases to be heard on February 9 include:

Boorman v. Nev. Memorial Cremation Society
This case stems from a request from the United States District Court, District of Nevada, for a Supreme Court decision on legal matters where there is no controlling Nevada precedent.  In the incident leading to the legal action, Richard Boorman succumbed to a lethal dose of alcohol and drugs while in Las Vegas for a bachelor party.  Richard’s body was transported to the Clark County coroner for autopsy, where his internal organs were removed.  The coroner maintains that the organs were then placed in a plastic bag and left with the body.  Richard’s body was then sent to the mortuary, which embalmed it before returning it to family members in London, England, without his internal organs.  After discovering the absence of Richard’s organs, the family filed an action against Memorial Cremation Society, Clark County, and the employees of both entities, alleging, among other claims, negligent and intentional infliction of emotional distress, breach of fiduciary duty, and conversion, related to the mishandling of Richard’s body.  Because no clearly controlling Nevada precedent for these issues exists, the district court certified several questions to the Supreme Court.  ISSUES:  What class of persons may bring a claim for negligent or intentional infliction of emotional distress for the mishandling of a deceased person’s remains?  Does that person need to be present and observe the negligent act?  Does that person need to demonstrate some physical manifestation of emotional distress?  Does a county coroner’s office owe a duty to the family members of a deceased individual not to lose, misplace, or misappropriate the deceased person’s organs such that the coroner’s office could be liable for emotional distress claims? Does a claim for conversion of a deceased human body or its parts exist under Nevada law, and if so, what class of person may bring such a claim?  If such a claim exists, may a plaintiff recover emotional distress damages arising out of conversion of the human remains?

Chao (Greg) v. State
This appeal raises treaty issues between the United States and Canada. Greg Chao, a Canadian citizen who was apprehended in Canada, is appealing his conviction in Clark County for robbery and first-degree murder in the death of Don Idiens, a fellow Canadian, who was in Las Vegas for an extended vacation.  ISSUES:  Did the district court err when it declined to suppress a statement Chao made to Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department detectives while he was in custody in Canada because the statement was allegedly obtained in violation of a treaty between the United States and Canada? Did the district court err in permitting the State to introduce evidence of Chao’s testimony at the Canadian extradition hearing because such testimony is akin to testimony in a suppression hearing in Nevada, which is inadmissible under NRS 47.090? 

BOYD LAW SCHOOL ARGUMENTS

Arguments at William S. Boyd Law School at UNLV are scheduled for 10 a.m. and 11 a.m.  As at Gorman High School, the justices will field questions from the students.  The Boyd arguments are also open to the public.

Cases to be heard on February 10 include:

Gamble (Clarence) v. State

(Panel includes Chief Justice Parraguirre, and Justices Hardesty and Pickering.  Justice Douglas voluntarily recused himself from participation in this matter) 

Numerous issues are raised in this appeal by Clarence Gamble, who was convicted of shooting and killing a woman with whom he was romantically involved.  At trial, Gamble claimed he acted in self-defense.  However, eyewitness testimony indicated otherwise.  Gamble was convicted of first-degree murder with the use of a deadly weapon and aggravated stalking.  Gamble now appeals the judgment of conviction.  ISSUES:  Did the district court err in refusing to dismiss the aggravated stalking charge?  Did the district court err in denying Gamble’s objections to the State’s use of peremptory challenges to excuse two prospective African-American jurors?  Did the district court err in instructions given to the jury?  Did the prosecutor commit misconduct warranting reversal of Gamble’s convictions? 

Valley Health System v. Garcia (Waneira)

(Panel includes Justices Hardesty, Douglas, and Pickering) 

This is an appeal of a jury verdict in a medical malpractice case.  In 1995, Waneira Garcia was about 39 weeks pregnant when she arrived at Valley Hospital in Las Vegas complaining of potential complications with her pregnancy.  Her daughter was delivered via Caesarian section, and suffers from ongoing developmental delays that will likely require ongoing medical treatment.  Garcia attributed her baby’s problems to the negligence of the hospital and filed a lawsuit alleging medical malpractice against her OB/GYN doctor, Joseph Watson, M.D., the hospital, and two of its employees, Mary Kathryn Watts and Madonna Sturgeon.  The district court entered a default judgment against Sturgeon for her failure to appear at the trial.  A jury found in favor of Dr. Watson, but determined that the hospital and its named employees were negligent and awarded Garcia damages and attorney fees.  This appeal followed.  ISSUES:  Did the district court err in entering a default judgment against Sturgeon for her failure to attend the trial?  Did the district court err in instructing the jury?  Did the district court abuse its discretion in awarding attorney fees to Garcia?

REGIONAL JUSTICE CENTER ARGUMENTS – February 10

(Panel includes Justices Cherry, Saitta and Gibbons)

Cases to be heard on February 10 include:

Tsai (Paul) v. Hsu (Ann

This case involves a 1996 settlement agreement in a divorce proceeding between Paul Tsai and Ann Hsu.  Part of the agreement provided that a parcel of land owned by the parties in Las Vegas was to be held in trust to pay for their children’s educational expenses.  No trust documents were created at the time the settlement agreement was reached, but apparently the parties quitclaimed the property to their children.  After the divorce, the children lived with Hsu in Hong Kong where they attended private elementary and secondary schools, paid for by Hsu.  In 2007, the property was sold for a sizeable amount of money.  The parties now dispute the allocation of the proceeds from the sale of the property.  ISSUES:  Did the parties transfer their entire interest in the property to their children?  Was the trust meant to finance the children’s private elementary and secondary school education when Tsai never consented to sending the children to private elementary and secondary schools?  Did the district court lack jurisdiction to make rulings regarding the trust? 

Salas (Miguel) v. State

In this appeal, issues are raised about the grand jury indictment of Miguel Salas, who was a juvenile at the time of an auto theft that led to a high speed chase and a head-on collision.  Salas was certified to stand trial as an adult following the incident in which he and Alberto Spindola broke into and stole an automobile in Las Vegas.  The pair attempted to evade capture by fleeing at high-speed from a police officer.  The chase ended in a head-on collision with another car.  Salas was arrested, certified as an adult, and charged with numerous felony violations.    The justice court, however, dismissed charges of robbery with the use of a deadly weapon and conspiracy to commit robbery for lack of probable cause, but bound over Salas to the district court on the remaining charges.  The State then convened a grand jury, which indicted Salas on the two previously dismissed charges.  Salas was found guilty at trial on all but three charges.  This appeal followed.  ISSUES:  Did the district court abuse its discretion in determining that the State provided Salas with reasonable notice of the grand jury proceedings?  Did the district court have jurisdiction to proceed on the grand jury indictment?  Did Salas demonstrate “exceptional circumstances” to show the district court abused its discretion in failing to remand his case to the juvenile court?  Did the State present sufficient evidence to convict Salas of robbery and conspiracy to commit robbery

Callara v. Las Vegas Hilton

This is an appeal of a split verdict at trial in a personal injury case.  Roseann Callara slipped and fell in the parking/valet parking drop-off area of the Las Vegas Hilton after which two employees of Hilton moved her to a nearby bench.  Subsequently, Callara sued Hilton for neglecting to keep the area clean and for moving her after she fell.  At trial, a jury returned a verdict in favor of Callara on her claim that Hilton employees negligently moved her after she fell.  The jury, however, ruled  for Hilton on the claim of failing to keep the area clean.  This appeal followed.  ISSUES:  Did the district court abuse its discretion when it concluded that Hilton should not be held to admissions made pre-trial?  Did the district court abuse its discretion by refusing to submit the admissions to the jury as evidence?  Did the district court abuse its discretion by allowing previously undisclosed witness testimony, and by directly questioning that witness?  Did Hilton have an obligation to create records regarding when areas of its property had been cleaned and should a jury instruction have been given that the Hilton spoiled evidence when Hilton did not destroy any records, but instead never created the records that Callara sought? 

Cacho (Ashton) v. State

In this case, Ashton Cacho is appealing his 2008 conviction by a Clark County jury for one count each of open or gross lewdness and indecent exposure, and four counts of lewdness with a child under the age of 14.    ISSUES:  Are the convictions redundant?  Did the district court err in not conducting a competency hearing regarding the child victim?  Did the State withhold exculpatory evidence and/or engage in prosecutorial misconduct?  Did the State present sufficient evidence to support the jury’s verdict? 

REGIONAL JUSTICE CENTER ARGUMENTS – February 11

(Panel includes Justices Hardesty, Douglas, and Pickering)

Cases to be heard on February 11 include:

Huesner (Allen) v. State

The evidence presented at trial demonstrated that after Allen Heusner had been served with a temporary protective order, he broke into the home he shared with his wife, beat to death the man with whom his wife had been having an intimate relationship, and set a blanket on fire.  Heusner was convicted of first-degree murder, first-degree arson, and burglary while in possession of a deadly weapon.  Heusner raises numerous issues on appeal.    ISSUES:  Did the district court err in allowing the State to pursue a theory of felony murder with the predicate felony being burglary based upon entry with an intent to murder?  Did the district court abuse its discretion by admitting prior bad act evidence? Did the district court abuse its discretion when it instructed the jury that it did not have to be unanimous on the theory supporting the first-degree murder conviction? Did the admission of evidence of Heusner's post-arrest silence violate his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination

Love (Sherri) v. State

Sherri Love is appealing her conviction for murdering her 7-year-old daughter, attempting to murder her 8-year-old son, and abusing and neglecting her son by killing his sister in front of him and stabbing him in the hand.  This incident occurred in Clark County several days after Love left a detoxification program, where she was being treated for alcoholism and drug addiction.  ISSUES: Did the district court properly instruct the jury?

Polk (Levenral) v. State

This appeal challenges witness testimony, Nevada’s deadly weapon enhancement, the district court’s ability to dismiss an injured juror prior to consulting with the parties, and whether a juror who lost consciousness during trial should have been dismissed.   Levenral Polk is appealing his second conviction for murdering a long-time friend, by shooting him from a car.  Polk was initially convicted of first-degree murder, but was granted a new trial by a federal court.  At his second trial in Clark County, Polk was convicted of second-degree murder with the use of a deadly weapon and discharging a firearm out of a motor vehicle. ISSUES: Did the district court improperly permit a witness to offer hearsay evidence about forensic test results when that witness did not perform the forensic testing? Is the deadly weapon enhancement statute unconstitutional in light of the United States Supreme Court’s decision in District of Columbia v. Heller?  Did the district court abuse its discretion by dismissing an injured juror prior to consulting the parties?  Did the district court err when it failed to dismiss a juror who lost consciousness during trial?