Home > High Profile > Nevada Supreme Court: Five important (or at least very interesting) oral arguments scheduled next week

Nevada Supreme Court: Five important (or at least very interesting) oral arguments scheduled next week

Posted on | February 25, 2010 | 1 Comment

The Nevada Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in three very important cases Monday in Carson City: A death penalty case (should Washoe County cop killer Siaosi Vanisi get a new trial); a guilty plea case (should Washoe County wife killer and judge shooter Darren Mack be allowed to withdraw his guilty pleas); and a newspaper versus the governor case: Should Governor Jim Gibbons be forced to provide the Reno Gazette Journal with copies of hundreds of emails he sent to a female friend — and should the Washoe County Court vetted which emails would be given to the newspaper and which would not?

On Tuesday, the subject matter is not as sexy but is equally important, involving two cases regarding water rights and the Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe.

Pasted below are the well-written synopses of these cases:

March 1, 2010, Oral Arguments

 

Vanisi (Siaosi) v. State of Nevada (Death Penalty)

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

Mack (Darren) v. State of Nevada

            Carson City – 10:30 a.m. – Full court (Justice Hardesty voluntarily recused himself from participation in this matter)

Reno Newspapers, Inc. v. Governor Jim Gibbons

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

Vanisi (Siaosi) v. State of Nevada (Death Penalty),

Docket No. 50607

Carson City – 10:00 a.m. – Full court

This is Siaosi Vanisi’s appeal from a district court order denying his post-conviction petition for a writ of habeas corpus in a death penalty case.  Vanisi was convicted by a Washoe County jury of first-degree murder, robbery with the use of a deadly weapon, two counts of robbery with a firearm, and grand larceny, for the 1998 murder of a UNR Police sergeant, and the subsequent theft of a car and robbery of two stores.  Vanisi previously appealed his convictions and death sentence, which were affirmed by the Nevada Supreme Court in 2001.  Vanisi then filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the district court, arguing that his conviction was invalid for numerous reasons.  The district court denied the habeas corpus petition and Vanisi has appealed that decision to the Supreme Court.  ISSUES:  Does the jury’s consideration of an invalid aggravating circumstance warrant a new penalty hearing?  Was Vanisi’s trial counsel ineffective?  Was Vanisi’s counsel for his appeal ineffective?  Did the district court err in finding Vanisi competent to proceed with his post-conviction petition?  (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.)

Mack (Darren) v. State of Nevada,

Docket No. 51143

Carson City – 10:30 a.m. – Full court (Justice Hardesty voluntarily recused himself from participation in this matter)

Darren Mack is appealing his convictions of first-degree murder and attempted murder with the use of a deadly weapon.  Mack pleaded guilty to first-degree murder for the killing of his estranged wife.  Mack also pleaded guilty to the shooting of the Washoe County Family Court Judge who was presiding over the couple’s divorce, pursuant to North Carolina v. Alford, in which a defendant pleads guilty without actually admitting guilt.  Before he was sentenced, Mack requested that he be allowed to withdraw his guilty pleas, claiming that he did not fully understand the nature and consequences of the pleas.  This request was denied.  Mack was then sentenced to 20 years to life for first-degree murder, and 96 to 240 months for attempted murder, and a consecutive sentence of 96 to 240 months for the use of a deadly weapon.  ISSUES:  Should an understanding of lesser-included offenses be factored into determining whether a defendant’s guilty plea is knowing and voluntary?  Should Nevada follow Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, which governs pleas in federal courts?  (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.)

Reno Newspapers, Inc. v. Governor Jim Gibbons,

Docket No. 53360

Carson City – 11:30 a.m. – Full court

This appeal arises from a dispute between Governor Jim Gibbons and the Reno Gazette-Journal (RGJ) over a request by the newspaper for some of the Governor’s e-mails.  In 2008, the RGJ made a public records request for e-mails between Governor Gibbons and 10 people over a six-month time period.  In the event that the Governor objected to the request, the RGJ asked that it alternatively be provided with a log indicating, for each e-mail, the sender, all recipients, the message date, and the basis on which access was being denied.  The Governor denied the request, claiming that the requested e-mails were either privileged or not considered public records.  The RGJ filed a petition for a writ of mandamus in the district court, seeking access to the e-mails or the alternative log.  After a hearing and a review of the e-mails by the judge, the district court granted the writ as to six e-mails, and denied the writ as to the remaining e-mails.  The RGJ is now appealing the district court’s decision.   ISSUES:  What is a public record for purposes of the Nevada Public Records Act?  Should the district court have ordered the Governor to produce the requested log rather than personally reviewing the e-mails and determining which e-mails should be provided?  (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.)

March 2, 2010, Oral Arguments

 

Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe v. Hugh Ricci, State Engineer

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

In re: Nevada State Engineer Ruling No. 5823

            Carson City – 10:30 a.m. – Full court

Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe v. Hugh Ricci, State Engineer,

Docket No. 51603

Carson City – 10:00 a.m. – Full court

This appeal arises from a dispute over water rights in Washoe County.  In 1980, Nevada Land and Resource Co., LLC (NLRC), received permits to appropriate groundwater from the Dodge Flat Hydrologic Basin for a mining and milling project. In 2000, NLRC applied to change the permit to use the groundwater to service a power generating plant.  The Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe contested the applications on several grounds.  After the State Engineer granted the applications, the Tribe petitioned the district court for review of the ruling. The district court denied the petition, and the Tribe now appeals to the Supreme Court.  ISSUE: Does substantial evidence support the State Engineer’s findings in granting the applications?  (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.)

In re: Nevada State Engineer Ruling No. 5823,

Docket No. 52963

Carson City – 10:30 a.m. – Full court

This case involves 27 consolidated groundwater applications for the Dayton Valley Hydrographic Basin in Lyon County.  The Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe opposed the applications, contending that the groundwater use would ultimately decrease flow into the Pyramid Lake and adversely affect the Tribe’s interests.  In Ruling No. 5823, the State Engineer granted all 27 applications.  The Tribe filed a petition for judicial review in the district court in Churchill County.  The Tribe was joined in the petition by Churchill County, which has surface rights in the Carson River that may be affected by changes to the Dayton Valley Hydrographic Basin.  The district court dismissed the petition for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, concluding that jurisdiction for review of a State Engineer’s ruling is determined by the location of the applicant’s water rights, which in this case is Lyon County.  The Tribe and Churchill County have appealed the district court’s denial of their petition to the Supreme Court.  ISSUES:  Did the district court err in concluding that it did not have subject matter jurisdiction to hear the petition for review?  Should the district court have transferred the petition to Lyon County rather than dismiss it?  (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.)

Comments