Kelley v. Kelley, 139 Nev. Adv. Op. 39 (Sep. 28, 2023)

The Nevada Supreme Court ruled that when it comes to disputes over medical treatment for children of parents with joint legal custody, the most appropriate standard is the best-interest-of-the-child standard. To determine the best interests of a child, the Court recommended a factor test to weigh the treatment’s potential harm, whether the child’s doctor recommends the treatment, the treatment’s potential risks, and the child’s preferences, depending on their age. Here, the Court applied that test and ruled that a doctor’s recommendation, judicial notice of findings from the CDC, and the potential risks of contracting COVID-19 were sufficient for a parent to establish that vaccination was in the child’s best interest, even if the other parent disagreed

Mariscal-Ochoa v. State, 140 Nev. Adv. Op. 42 (Jun. 27, 2024)

During voir dire, a prospective juror stated unclearly and quietly that she thought she recognized the defendant, Mariscal-Ochoa, as her nephew’s sexual abuser. She was struck for cause over Mariscal-Ochoa’s objections to strike the entire venire, and the lower court gave a curative instruction reiterating the presumption of innocence and clarifying the jurors’ role in disregarding uncharged acts. Mariscal-Ochoa was convicted for sexually abusing his nine-year-old stepdaughter after testifying. The Court affirmed, holding that the trial court was in the best position to determine whether prejudice was incurable during voir dire

Ene v. Graham, 140 Nev. Adv. Op. 26 (Apr. 18, 2024)

The Nevada Supreme Court ruled that (1) only issues expressly or impliedly tried by either party should be discussed at trial; and (2) alter ego liability analyses apply the same to both LLCs and corporations. The Court found that the legislature intended for corporate veil piercing statutes and alter ego exceptions to apply similarly to both corporations and LLCs. Although both courts agreed that Ene influenced and governed International Property Holdings, LLC (IPH), the Court held that (1) Graham failed to establish a causal connection between her injuries and Ene’s personal use of the property, and (2) the lower court’s analysis of the manifest injustice element did not consider precedential factors like the impact on the property’s creditors. The Court reversed and remanded the district court’s finding that Ene was an alter ego of IPH

Reported Experiences with Plea Bargaining: A Theoretical Analysis of the Legal Standard

Although the majority of criminal cases in the United States are settled with plea bargains, very little empirical evidence exists to explain how defendants make life-altering plea bargain decisions. This Article first discusses the psychologicalfactors involved in plea bargaining decisions. Next, this Article empirically examines the factors involved in plea decisions of real-life defendants within the legal and psychological contexts. Finally, this Article highlights the psychological issues that need to be further examined in pleabargaining literature

Willson v. First Jud. Dist. Ct., 140 Nev. Adv. Op. 7 (Feb. 22, 2024)

The Nevada Court of Appeals ruled on the proper interpretation of a Nevada statute prohibiting obstruction of an officer’s activities. Previously, the rule simply stated that no one could “willfully hinder, delay, or obstruct” an officer exercising police powers or duties. The court ruled that the intent must be specific to disrupting the officer, and that the acts must beeither physical conduct or fighting words. After the court’s construal of the rule, the court ruled the statute was not unconstitutionally overbroad or vague, neither on its face nor as applied to the facts in this case. Although the court ruled that Willson’s constitutionality claim failed, the court instructed the district court to reconsider whether the Court of Appeals’ interpretation of the statute changed the sufficiency of the evidence against Willson

When Cases Fit the Gist of Rape But Not the Verbatim Definition (and Vice Versa): A Fuzzy-trace Theory of Jurors' Judgments of Guilt

Jurors have duties to follow strict interpretations of the law when making decisions about defendant guilt. However, jurors are not blank slates – by the time trial has started, eligible jurors (i.e. adults) have already accumulated strong senses of gist (intuition) built upon experience, emotion, and moral reasoning irrespective of the law. We investigate the impact of verbatim (violations of rote legal definitions) and gist (bottom-line or essence) manipulations of rape on juror decision-making. Despite jury instructions, we predict that legal verdicts will be influenced by gist. Conversely, we predict that verbatim manipulations will influence personal assignments of guilt such that scenarios that violate the law will be judged as more immoral or personally violating. The first experiment measured responses to scenarios involving alcohol (N = 158) and scenarios involving age disparities (N = 206). Participants received one of four combinations of two cases, giving two verdicts per case, resulting in 4 total responses. These verdicts corresponded to whether the actions in the scenario rose to the level of rape legally and personally - participants gave hard legal verdicts (guilty and not guilty) as if participants were on a jury, and personal verdicts that corresponded to personal expectations of rape (still coded as guilty/not guilty). The presence of verbatim violations and gist violations of rape both significantly increased the rate of legal and personal verdicts, implying that 1) the gist of rape inflates legal guilty verdicts and 2) written law inflates personal opinions of what qualifies as rape while controlling for rape myth acceptance (endorsement of myths related to sexual assault and aggression). Experiment 2 (N = 258) improved upon the methods of Experiment 1. The age scenario was revised, and scenarios related to coercion and deception replaced alcohol. Overall, age-related scenarios were more influenced by verbatim, and coercion and deception were more overall influenced by gist. Follow-up studies with gender, survivor status, and law enforcement are suggested for informing relevant policy

Ene v. Graham, 140 Nev. Adv. Op. 26 (Apr. 18, 2024)

The Nevada Supreme Court ruled that (1) only issues expressly or impliedly tried by either party should be discussed at trial; and (2) alter ego liability analyses apply the same to both LLCs and corporations. The Court found that the legislature intended for corporate veil piercing statutes and alter ego exceptions to apply similarly to both corporations and LLCs. Although both courts agreed that Ene influenced and governed International Property Holdings, LLC (IPH), the Court held that (1) Graham failed to establish a causal connection between her injuries and Ene’s personal use of the property, and (2) the lower court’s analysis of the manifest injustice element did not consider precedential factors like the impact on the property’s creditors. The Court reversed and remanded the district court’s finding that Ene was an alter ego of IPH

Willson v. First Jud. Dist. Ct., 140 Nev. Adv. Op. 7 (Feb. 22, 2024)

The Nevada Court of Appeals ruled on the proper interpretation of a Nevada statute prohibiting obstruction of an officer’s activities. Previously, the rule simply stated that no one could “willfully hinder, delay, or obstruct” an officer exercising police powers or duties. The court ruled that the intent must be specific to disrupting the officer, and that the acts must beeither physical conduct or fighting words. After the court’s construal of the rule, the court ruled the statute was not unconstitutionally overbroad or vague, neither on its face nor as applied to the facts in this case. Although the court ruled that Willson’s constitutionality claim failed, the court instructed the district court to reconsider whether the Court of Appeals’ interpretation of the statute changed the sufficiency of the evidence against Willson

Kelley v. Kelley, 139 Nev. Adv. Op. 39 (Sep. 28, 2023)

The Nevada Supreme Court ruled that when it comes to disputes over medical treatment for children of parents with joint legal custody, the most appropriate standard is the best-interest-of-the-child standard. To determine the best interests of a child, the Court recommended a factor test to weigh the treatment’s potential harm, whether the child’s doctor recommends the treatment, the treatment’s potential risks, and the child’s preferences, depending on their age. Here, the Court applied that test and ruled that a doctor’s recommendation, judicial notice of findings from the CDC, and the potential risks of contracting COVID-19 were sufficient for a parent to establish that vaccination was in the child’s best interest, even if the other parent disagreed

Risk-Taking

A number of factors can influence an individual’s propensity to take risks. In particular, developmental differences in reward sensitivity (attraction to money, food, and other rewards), self-control, and mental representation (the mental picture or interpretation) of choices have each been shown to explain greater susceptibility to risk-taking. Developmental differences refer to how people change with age from infancy to old age. This entry will explain how understanding each of these factors (and developmental trends in each of them) can help to explain changes in risk-taking that occur across the life span. This entry first defines key terms relating to risk-taking and then goes on to describe developmental trends in risk-taking and how these trends are explained by the leading psychological theories of risk-taking.https://digitalcommons.law.uw.edu/faculty-chapters/1055/thumbnail.jp