In State v. Ruscetta, the defendant was charged with drug and firearm offenses after police found marijuana and a handgun during a consensual search of his vehicle following a traffic stop. The district court granted Ruscetta's motion to suppress the evidence, concluding that moving the center console exceeded the scope of his consent, in part based on the court's prior decision in State v. Johnson. On appeal, the Nevada Supreme Court clarified that the proper test for the scope of consensual vehicular searches is an objective reasonableness inquiry based on the totality of the circumstances, rather than a per se rule against certain actions like dismantling parts of a vehicle. The court held that although the district court identified the correct legal standard, it failed to conduct an evidentiary hearing or make written factual findings, and therefore vacated the suppression order and remanded the case for further proceedings.

criminal lawprocedure

In this case, Glenford Ennis appealed the denial of his post-conviction habeas petition after his 2001 convictions for second-degree murder with a deadly weapon, coercion, and attempted murder arising from the stabbing death of his girlfriend Michelle Welch. Ennis argued that statements from police officers and family members about prior domestic incidents should have been excluded under the Confrontation Clause as interpreted in Crawford v. Washington, decided after his trial and direct appeal, and that his trial counsel was ineffective for not challenging their admission. The Nevada Supreme Court held that Crawford announced a new constitutional rule that does not apply retroactively to cases already final on direct review under federal or state law. The court further concluded that Ennis failed to show deficient performance or prejudice from counsel's handling of the hearsay evidence, which qualified as excited utterances or was otherwise admissible. The court affirmed the district court's denial of relief.

criminal lawprocedurecivil rights

The case involved a dispute over whether a Nevada court should recognize a North Carolina divorce decree and award retroactive child support and divide marital assets not addressed in that decree. The court held that the North Carolina judgment was entitled to full faith and credit under the U.S. Constitution, that North Carolina law governed its analysis, and that retroactive child support could be awarded because the decree made no provision for support. The reasoning centered on the absence of any showing of fraud, lack of jurisdiction, or due process violations in the North Carolina proceedings, allowing the Nevada court to apply its own laws regarding omitted support and property issues while respecting the out-of-state decree.

family lawprocedurefederal power

This case involved a mother's appeal of a district court order terminating her parental rights to three children, based on findings of unfitness, failure to adjust, and token efforts, with termination deemed in the children's best interests after repeated removals due to abuse and neglect, minimal compliance with case plans, and her incarceration. The mother argued ineffective assistance of counsel, claiming her attorney failed to object to hearsay and other evidence. The Nevada Supreme Court affirmed the termination, holding that the right to appointed counsel in parental termination proceedings is not absolute but must be determined case-by-case under the Lassiter balancing test for due process, and that no such right existed here, precluding the ineffective assistance claim; substantial evidence also supported the district court's decision on parental fault and best interests.

family lawcivil rights