The Nevada Supreme Court has held that a recorded phone call may be used in Court as long as the recording is legal in the state in which the recording was made. In Mclellan v. State, the Defendant appealed the District Court's admission of telephone calls made in California to the Defendant in Nevada. Only the California residents were aware that the call would be recorded.
The Defendant claimed that the recording should not have been admitted as Nevada law requires that all parties to the call must have been aware of the recording for it to be admissible. California law only required the knowledge of one party to the call that recording was occurring.
The Court held that as long as the recording complies with the law in the place in which the recording is made, it will be admissible at trial.
Click here to read the Nevada Supreme Court's opinion.
Showing posts with label Nevada Supreme Court. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Nevada Supreme Court. Show all posts
Saturday, May 3, 2008
NEVADA SUPREME COURT RULES ON ADMISSIBILITY OF INTERCEPTED PHONE CALLS
Labels:
Criminal Appeals,
Criminal Law,
Nevada Supreme Court
Friday, April 11, 2008
SUPREME COURT CLARIFIES WEAPONS ENHANCEMENTS
The Nevada Supreme Court has clarified the circumstances under which a criminal defendant's sentence may be enhanced for use of a deadly weapon even if he was unarmed. In Brooks v. State, 124 Nev. Adv. Op. No. 19 (2008), the Supreme Court held that a defendant may receive such a deadly weapon enhancement "...if an unarmed offender is liable as a principal for the offense that is sought to be enhanced, another principal to the offense is armed with and uses a deadly weapon in the commission of the offense, and the unarmed offender had knowledge of the use of the deadly weapon." In other words, one may receive a deadly weapon sentencing enhancement if he is assisting in the commission of the crime, has a co-conspirator who is armed, and knows that the co-conspirator is armed.
District Court Judge Donald Mosley had essentially instructed the jury that a defendant could receive such a sentencing enhancement even if he was unarmed and did not realize the co-defendant was armed. Mr. Brooks will receive a new trial as a result of this decision.
Click here to learn more about weapons charges in Nevada.
District Court Judge Donald Mosley had essentially instructed the jury that a defendant could receive such a sentencing enhancement even if he was unarmed and did not realize the co-defendant was armed. Mr. Brooks will receive a new trial as a result of this decision.
Click here to learn more about weapons charges in Nevada.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)