stating that Nevada’s sexual assault statute requires a live victim
How later courts described this case
- stating that Nevada’s sexual assault statute requires a live victim
- reversal based on error in the admission or exclusion of evidence inappropriate absent “clear abuse” of discretion
- "Trial courts have considerable discretion in determining the relevance and admissibility of evidence."
- prosecutor’s statements that defendant “brutally murdered” and “savaged” the victim were proper to describe the impact of the crime on the victim and her family
Written by the judges who cited it.
Later courts went against this
Overruled on other grounds by McConnell v. State, 120 Nev. 1043 (2004)
” Atkins v. State, 112 Nev. 1122, 1127, 923 P.2d 1119, 1123 (1996), overruled on other grounds by McConnell v. State, 120 Nev. 1043, 102 P.3d 606 (2004).
The opinion
Steffen, C. J.,
concurring in part and dissenting in part:
For the reasons specified in my dissent in Doyle v. State, 112 Nev. 879 , 921 P.2d 901 (1996), I respectfully dissent from that part of the majority’s opinion that reverses Atkins’ conviction for sexual assault. I concur in all other aspects of the majority’s opinion.