Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the district court rejecting Appellant's complaint challenging an initiative petition that would, if approved by voters, add two sections to Article 15 of the Nevada Constitution, holding that the district court properly denied relief.The initiative petition proposed two changes - open primary elections and ranked-choice general elections for specified officeholders. The district court rejected Appellant's complaint challenging the initiative petition. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) even though the initiative petition proposed more than one change to Nevada law, it still met the single-subject requirement; (2) the initiative petition's description of effect was not misleading or inadequate; and (3) Appellant failed to demonstrate that the proposal required the expenditure of money without providing a funding source. View "Helton v. Nevada Voters First PAC" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the district court enjoining Education Freedom PAC (EFP) from circulating an initiative petition for signatures and enjoining the Secretary of State from including the initiative on the ballot, holding that the initiative fell short of meeting constitutional requirements.The initiative at issue would amend the Nevada Constitution to require the legislature to establish education freedom accounts for parents to use to pay for their child's education if that child is educated outside of the uniform system of common schools. Respondents filed a complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief challenging the petition. The district court concluded that the initiative was invalid for three reasons. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court (1) properly denied EFP's request to dismiss the complaint; and (2) properly enjoined the EFP initiative's circulation and placement on the ballot because the initiative failed to comply with constitutional requirements. View "Education Freedom PAC v. Reid" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court held that traditional standing requirements may not apply when an appropriate party seeks to enforce a public official's compliance with Nevada's separation of powers clause, provided that the issue is likely to recur and there is a need for future guidance.Appellant filed a complaint alleging that Respondents' dual service as members of the state legislature and as employees of the state or local government violated the separation of powers clause in the Nevada Constitution. The district court dismissed the complaint for lack of standing, concluding that Appellant did not allege a personal injury for traditional standing and did not satisfy the requirements of the public importance exception to standing. The Supreme Court reversed after limitedly expanding the public importance exception in Nevada to cases such as the instant case, holding that the constitutional separation of powers challenge at issue met the requirements for the public-importance exception to standing. View "Nevada Policy Research Institute, Inc. v. Cannizzaro" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed Appellant's conviction of multiple child sexual assault and abuse counts, holding that the district court's decision denying Appellant's motion to substitute counsel violated his Sixth Amendment right to counsel.In this twenty-two-count criminal matter Appellant retained Mitchell Posin as defense counsel. On the eve of trial, Appellant filed a motion to substitute counsel, alleging that Posin failed adequately to prepare the defense. The district court denied the motion, and a jury convicted Appellant of most of the counts. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the district court applied the wrong test in deciding Appellant's motion to substitute counsel because Posin was retained, not appointed; and (2) under the appropriate test, the district court abused its discretion by denying the motion to substitute counsel. View "Brass v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the district court denying Appellant's postconviction petition for a writ of habeas corpus, holding that counsel's overt interjection of racial stereotypes into Appellant's criminal trial constituted ineffective assistance of counsel.After a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty of attempted murder with the use of a deadly weapon, battery with the use of a deadly weapon, and battery with the use of a deadly weapon resulting in substantial bodily harm. In his postconviction petition for a writ of habeas corpus, Defendant claimed that counsel was ineffective for introducing racial issues into the trial. The district court denied the petition. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) counsel's statements impermissibly tainted the jury pool by introducing racial invective into the proceedings; and (2) counsel's performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness and prejudiced the defense. View "Dean v. Narvaiza" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the district court dismissing Appellant's third postconviction petition for a writ of habeas corpus, holding that the district court did not err in dismissing the petition.Appellant was convicted of first-degree murder with the use of a deadly robbery and other crimes. After a penalty phase retrial, the jury returned a death sentence. Appellant later filed a third postconviction petition for a writ of habeas corpus, the petition at issue on appeal. The district court dismissed the petition as procedurally barred. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Defendant could not rely on the alleged ineffective assistance of first postconviction counsel as good cause and prejudice to raise grounds for relief from the guilt phase of his trial; (2) Defendant's ineffective assistance claims of second postconviction counsel lacked merit; and (3) Defendant failed to show that the failure to consider his claims would result in a fundamental miscarriage of justice sufficient to excuse the procedural bars to the petition. View "Chappell v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court granted Petitioner's application seeking a writ of mandamus precluding the district court from requiring adherence to an unconstitutional statute, holding that Nev. Rev. Stat. 52.380 violates the separation of powers doctrine.In 2019, the Supreme Court amended Nev. R. Civ. P. 35, which governs mental and physical examinations of a party that are ordered during discovery in civil litigation. Thereafter, the Legislature enacted section 52.380, which governs conditions for such examinations. Rule 35 disallows observers at certain mental examinations, prohibits the examinee's attorney from attending any examination, and allows audio recordings only upon a showing of good cause. Section 52.380, however, allows the examinee's attorney to attend and make audio recordings of all mental and physical examinations. The district court concluded that section 52.380 supersedes Rule 35 such that the real party in interest's examinations in this case must follow the statutory procedures. The Supreme Court granted mandamus relief, holding (1) section 52.380 is unconstitutional because it attempts to abrogate an existing rule of procedure that this Court prescribed under its inherent authority to regulate the judicial process; and (2) the district court manifestly abused its discretion by allowing the examinations to proceed under section 52.380. View "Lyft, Inc. v. District Court" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed Defendant's conviction of sex trafficking of a child under eighteen years of age, first-degree kidnapping, living from the earnings of a prostitute, and child abuse, neglect, or endangerment, holding that the trial court's Faretta canvass was in appropriate in this case.Defendant, who represented himself at trial, was found guilty of sex trafficking of a child under eighteen years of age, first-degree kidnapping, living from the earnings of a prostitute, and child abuse, neglect, or endangerment. The Supreme Court reversed Defendant's conviction on the basis that the waiver of his right to counsel was invalid, holding (1) the trial court's determination that Defendant validly waived his right to counsel was unreasonable in light of the inadequate inquiry into Defendant's understanding of the sentences he faced if convicted; and (2) the trial court should refrain from disparaging Defendant's choice to waive counsel. View "Miles v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction, pursuant to a guilty plea, of two counts of driving under the influence resulting in death and one count of felony reckless driving but vacated his sentence, holding that the district court wrongly considered certain statements during sentencing.Under Nev. Const. art. I, 8A, also known as Marsy's Law, and Nev. Rev. Stat. 176.015 victims are afforded the right to be heard at sentencing. At issue was how to reconcile the provisions' different definitions of "victim." The Supreme Court held (1) neither definition includes anyone and everyone impacted by a crime, as the district court found in this case; (2) when presented with an objection to impact statements during sentences, a district court must first determine if an individual falls under either the constitutional definition or the statutory definition of "victim," and if the statement is from a nonvictim, the district court may consider it only upon a determination that the statement is relevant and reliable; and (3) the district court erroneously considered statements, over objection, from persons who do not fall under either definition of victim without making the required relevance and reliability findings. View "Aparicio v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the district court finding that Assembly Bill (A.B.) 458, which did not met the supermajority voting requirement but was nevertheless passed during the eightieth session of the Nevada Legislature in 2019, was constitution, holding that the bill was not subject to the supermajority requirement.A.B. 458 eliminated future increases in the amount of tax credits available to businesses that donated to certain scholarship organizations. Appellants - parents of scholarship recipients, a scholarship organization, and businesses who benefitted from the tax credit - brought this action challenging the legislation as unconstitutional. The district court granted the State's motion for summary judgment, concluding that the legislation did not violate the supermajority voting provision set forth in Nev. Const. art. IV, 18(2). The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) A.B. 458 does not increase public revenue but instead redirects funds from a specific appropriation to the State General Fund; and (2) therefore, the bill was constitutionally enacted. View "Morency v. State, Department of Education" on Justia Law