When are Juvenile Defendants Tried as Adults in Nevada?

 Nevada’s juvenile courts handle most criminal cases involving juvenile defendants. This usually includes charges like DUI, theft, assault, vandalism, breaking and entering, and many other misdemeanors. However, there are instances when the alleged crime is far too severe to be tried in juvenile courts; such cases would then be referred to a regular court for processing.

Yes, youth offenders can be eligible to face adult charges instead of merely being tried by juvenile judges, and can face criminal penalties like life with parole. Such instances often happen under extraordinary circumstances, and can put the juvenile defendant in a tougher legal quagmire than before. Let’s look at how juvenile defendants are tried as adults in Nevada.

The Requirements

There are several prerequisites that must be in place before a juvenile defendant becomes eligible to be tried in a higher court. For a general overview, however, either of the following is the most commonly cited requirement:

1. The child is either 13, 14, or 15, and is facing a murder or attempted murder charge. In this case, the court has discretion to certify the charge as an adult charge.

2. The minor is at least 14 and is charged with a felony. As with the previous instance, the judge has discretion to certify the charge for adult courts.

3. The minor is either 16 or 17, and is involved in a sexual assault or firearm case. Such incidents often lead to a mandatory certification, though the judge can choose not to under specific circumstances.

Note that clauses exist regarding the child’s mental/developmental competence to understand the charges they are faced with, may have a substance abuse problem, or is facing emotional distress throughout the trial period. Such circumstances can also affect whether or not a juvenile can be certified for an adult hearing.

Differentiating between Mandatory and Optional Certification

While the judge has the final say when certifying a juvenile defendant for adult criminal court, there are still provisions in place that determine how such certifications are carried out.

Mandatory Certification simply means that the charge must be certified for a criminal court. This means that, unless affected by special circumstances, the juvenile must be transferred to a criminal court to be tried.

Optional Certification means that the juvenile judge still has the choice to keep the charge within their jurisdiction. As long as the defense has the necessary documents and evidence, the judge can choose to deny certification as they see fit.

The Direct File Issue

One of the pertinent issues regarding juvenile justice in Nevada is the direct file clause. Under this clause, juvenile defendants facing certain felony charges are automatically tried as adults, without consulting with juvenile courts. The clause first came into effect during the 1990s as part of the strong anti-crime trend that swept the country. In retrospect, the clause instead led to the disproportionate increase of incarcerated black and brown youths.

Debates remain whether this legislation should be removed or amended. Reformists claims that the direct file clause is an archaic ruling and only affects poorer, non-white youths. Supporters counter that the clause helped streamline the handling of defendants. Time will tell whether the direct file clause will be repealed or amended.

Juvenile defendants must understand that they are liable to face an adult criminal charge if the circumstances are right. Knowing the requirements for a transfer to a higher court can help juvenile defendants better defend themselves and stay in juvenile court.

Why Nevada has No Romeo and Juliet Laws

 Across many states, Romeo and Juliet laws are in place to protect minors involved in consensual sexual relationships from facing severe legal consequences in the long run. These affirmative defense actions are meant to keep the minors’ rights as citizens and not take them away at such a young age. 

Despite this, some states do not have such clauses related to age of consent. Nevada is one such example. Let’s look at why Nevada does not have Romeo and Juliet laws.

Reviewing Statutory Rape

Before we look into that, let’s look at what statutory rape is. In brief, statutory rape refers to any form of sexual misconduct where the victim is below the age of consent. It is understood that the actor must be above the age of consent to be convicted for statutory rape, but circumstances change when Romeo and Juliet laws are concerned.

In Nevada, statutory rape is referred to as an act of penetrative sex where the perpetrator is at least above 18 years of age, while the victim is at least 14 or 15 years old (Nevada’s age of consent is 16 years). It is also known in legal documents as statutory sexual seduction. Apart from some particulars regarding names, Nevada’s statutory rape laws are generally the same compared to other states.

So Why No Romeo and Juliet Laws?

Nevada is one of the few states where consensual sexual relationships are not illegal. Simply put, as long as both parties consent to the sexual relationship and no coercion is involved, the state cannot prosecute either party for sex crimes.

As sexual acts between minors are not criminalized, the state of Nevada does not see the need to implement affirmative defense measures to protect them against sex crime-related prosecution. The state may recognize mutual consent as a sign that pursuing legal action would be wrong.

But Can They Still Be Liable?

Surprisingly, yes. The lack of legal protections via the Romeo and Juliet laws means that both parties can face statutory rape charges as defined in the Nevada Revised Statutes. This situation is very rare, however, and may only happen due to very rare circumstances.

In the extremely rare instance that both parties become liable to a statutory rape charge, they can expect the full extent of penalties from the Nevada legal system. This would often mean a possible misdemeanor conviction (the typical penalty for minors who committed sex crimes), but the judge has prerogative to require both parties to register as sex offenders.

Nevada understands that minors can engage in consexual sexual activity without it constituing abuse. Nonetheless, the state reminds youths that going too far can have legal consequences for themselves in the end.

What is the Tolling Rule for Statutes of Limitations in Nevada?

 

The statute of limitations provides a legal timeframe within which a wronged party must file a case in court. Failure to do so within this limit can lead to the case being thrown out without appeal at no cost to the defendant. It is also set in effect to ensure that the parties involved receive a swift trial for the case.

This situation does not also apply, however. There are cases where the court can put the statute on hold, depending on the case’s circumstances. This is called the tolling rule, and is an aspect of statutes of limitations that applies to special cases. Let’s learn more about what the tolling rule is for statutes of limitations in Nevada.

What is the Tolling Rule?

The tolling rule is a legal ruling that allows that court to put a crime’s statute of limitations on hold under certain circumstances. In other words, the countdown to the time limit for filing a case is put on hold for the foreseeable future. The tolling rule is in effect until the court finds sufficient grounds to lift it with concern to the case.

It is important to note that the tolling rule also applies to defendants out-of-state. If the crime is discovered but the defendant cannot be found within state borders, the statute of limitations will not go into effect until either the defendant goes back or is discovered in another state or country. There are instances, however, where the tolling rule does not apply for out-of-state defendants, such as when the plaintiff has alternate ways to serve a legal summons.

Why is the Tolling Rule Significant?

There are instances where a victim does not realize that they are already the victim of a crime until much too late. It may be that the effects of the crime are not yet apparent, the victim is not fully aware that an act constitutes a crime, or the victim is far too young to understand the situation. On the other hand, the perpetrator may be actively concealing the crime from the public so they can keep doing it.

The tolling rule applies in such cases to ensure that the victim can still receive justice long after the crime was first committed. It prevents the victim from further being taken advantage of, and allows them to file a case as soon as they discover the crime. It also ensures that the statutes will not be in effect until the victim has probable cause to file a claim (for example, visible injuries or damages).

The Tolling Rule and Children

Children are very vulnerable to exploitation and crime because they lack the reasoning and judgment to determine if a person is good or bad. This innocence means that victims only find out about these crimes far too late.

As a general rule, the statute of limitations for crimes involving minors are tolled until they reach 18 years of age. This rule generally applies to sexual abuse and trafficking case, however. For other crimes, the tolling rule will only apply if the effects are not immediately apparent. Otherwise, the regular statutes of limitations will automatically come into effect.

Nevada’s tolling rule is an important counterbalance for the statute of limitations to ensure that the parties involved are not affected by unexpected time constraints. This is just one of many aspects of the criminal justice system that ensures that the right to a fair trial is strictly enforced.

How a Litigation Is Considered Frivolous

Courts throughout the country handle scores of cases on a regular day, ranging from routine charges to landmark hearings. However, there are instances that the court receives a litigation that is so out-of-depth that it wastes the court's time and resources. These instances refer to a frivolous litigation, a kind of lawsuit, charge, or claim that lacks legal merit but is nonetheless submitted to the court for consideration.

There are many factors to help courts identify when a litigation is frivolous. A number of the most prominent ones are listed below.

Legal Fantasies

The first and most prominent factor for a frivolous claim is the lack of legal grounds to support the claim. This could either be due to the improper interpretation of a particular law, the citation of an outdated or unadopted law or amendment, or plain ignorance of established legal statutes. In extreme cases, the litigant adopts an absurd method of interpreting the law in the belief that it shields them from the effects of said law. Methods like specific capitalization, selective reading of court opinions on similar cases, and outright rejection of state and federal institutions as illegitimate are commonplace for frivolous litigants.

Outrageous Motions

These kinds of frivolous cases not only lack any legal merit but fly in the face of fact and common sense. Such kinds of litigation range from filing motions that are not recognized in any competent court of law, utilizing excess legal jargon even in the improper context, requesting extreme remedies for relatively minor crimes, or suing another party based on trivial, unrelated, or imagined matters. For example, a case where a customer sues a restaurant for failing to live up to a 'satisfaction guaranteed' motto and asking millions of dollars in damages payment can be considered frivolous due to the excess damages and the trivial 'offense' incurred.

Bad Faith

Some frivolous motions are not filed for their own merits. Often, there are frivolous lawsuits filed that are intentionally detrimental to another party, or to the court itself. These so-called 'bad faith' lawsuits aim to harass or embarrass the other party into cowering to their demands or leaving them be to pursue their unlawful actions. In many cases, bad faith lawsuits are filed to shut down the operations of the court or other government entity via a series of false and frivolous claims. Common bad faith litigants include tax protestors and anti-government entities who do not recognize state and Federal institutions and who only respect county-level law. Because of how such frivolous claims clog up the legal system and operational capability of government institutions, such actions are often called collectively as paper terrorism.

People should not take frivolous litigation lightly, even if most of the time they end up to be absurd and inconsequential. Conversely, don't let yourself become enjoined to a legal action that will end up being frivolous in the end. Always consult with a competent criminal defense lawyer before making any filings in court.

Top Five States with Recorded DUI Cases in Early 2021

More people are back on the road again thanks to improved healthcare initiatives to deal with the pandemic. While this means a slow return to regular traffic increasing to pre-pandemic levels, it also hints at a return to pre-pandemic DUI statistics. Recent reports even indicate that DUI cases in Las Vegas are already spiking up to its old figures in the past few months. What's equally interesting is that the national average for drunk driving cases was actually higher towards the last quarter of the year.

Despite the reports, you'd be surprised to know that Nevada isn't among the top states with a recorded increase in DUI cases in the past few months. Listed below are five states with higher DUI cases recorded in early 2021.

South Dakota

The Mount Rushmore State is reported to have DUI cases with 3.87% of all its registered drivers. According to state and national officials, that is one-and-a-half times higher than the national average for inebriated drivers over the past year. On a more grim note, South Dakotan drunk drivers accounted for 16% more DUI-related fatalities than the national average. Little wonder that the state is among the highest-rated when it comes to DUI for two straight years.

Minnesota

With a 44%-above-average DUI case rating, the North Star State is considered fourth overall for drunk driving bookings for the first quarter of the year. In a surprising contrast, fewer Minnesotans suffer life-threatening injuries or outright death when they get involved in a DUI collision, a marked contrast to South Dakota. The higher penalties for inebriated driving may be a factor for this difference.

Wisconsin

Wisconsin is also another consecutive top placer like South Dakota, and even shares Minnesota's 44%-above-average rating for DUI cases. It has around 3.79% getting booked for drunk driving over the past few months. Even worse for its standing is that it has an even higher DUI-related fatality rate than South Dakota.

Wyoming

Despite having one the lowest population densities across the country, the Cowboy State still trumps the others when it comes to drunk driving cases during the latter half of 2020 and the early parts of 2021. A whopping 4.6% of all its registered drivers has at least one DUI booking, a significant ramp up from the next highest. It sits at 54% above the national average when it comes to drunk driving.

North Dakota

Contrary to its reputation as the Peace Garden State, North Dakota tops the list of states with the highest DUI cases in early 2021. Sitting at 4.9% of all drivers registered in the state, it is 57% higher than the national average for all kinds of DUI. Like most of the top states on this list, North Dakota holds its spot for the second year in a row. In a unique subversion, the state only has an average fatality rating for DUI collisions that is on par with the national average.

The Pandemic may not have had a major effect on the DUI cases in these states, but this should stand to remind you about how determined state governments are in convicting drunk drivers. If you ever end up a similar drunk driving case in Las Vegas, remember that there is a veteran criminal defense attorney that you can rely on to represent you.

DUI Checkpoints in Las Vegas: A Review

 Las Vegas has one of the busiest road networks in the country. Its most traveled routes have a combined annual average of over 300,000 different vehicle types on regular days alone. Of course, the pandemic did slash the number of motorists plying the highways and smaller streets, but there was still significant volume to consider. As life slowly returns to normal in Las Vegas, traffic is expected to return to pre-pandemic numbers as well, which can mean one more thing: a return to increased risk of DUI in Las Vegas. 

Despite the fact that the pandemic did not entirely eliminate the instances of drunk driving in the city, the current situation hints at a possible return to previous conditions. Law enforcement are keen to prevent this, of course, and will aim to redouble their efforts with DUI traffic stops at busy intersections and road segments. If you've been cooped up working at home for most of the past year and are about to go out and driving again after a long time, it's a good point to review on how DUI stops in Las Vegas work.

First Off, DUI Checkpoints

DUI checkpoints are basically administrative checkpoints laid out by law enforcement to check on the driving populace and confirm that they are not on the road while under the influence. In its basic form, it would involve a number of police vehicles and highly-visible temporary markers on the road indicating that a checkpoint is currently in effect. DUI checkpoints are mandated to be visible to oncoming traffic from 100 feet away, from both sides of the road.

What some people may not know is that there have been several legal challenges in the past to the practice across different states, including Nevada. The commonly-cited argument relates to the Fourth Amendment, which protects citizens against illegal search and seizure. The arguments against DUI checkpoints were finally put to rest after a 1990 Supreme Court decision states that DUI checkpoints are legal on the grounds of public safety, especially in areas where such cases are rampant.

Key Points to Remember

When you finally get back on the road again, you might find yourself getting caught in a queue for a traffic stop. If you do, you need to remember these points:

- DUI stops happen because police officers have reasonable suspicion to halt a driver at the checkpoint.

- Reasonable suspicion is reached when police officers observe a list of criteria for the suspected driver. These commonly included erratic driving, frequent braking, or unexplained stopping in the middle of the road.

- Officers can consider if a driver is inebriated through breathalyzer tests, field sobriety tests, and blood sampling.

- You can choose to refuse a sobriety/BAC test, but it automatically invokes the implied consent law, which puts you at risk of losing your license temporarily, even when you get a not-guilty verdict should you go to court.

Do You Need a DUI Lawyer for a DUI Stop?

You might get the knee-jerk reflex to call for legal representation should you end up in a Las Vegas DUI traffic stop. After all, you might be planning to avoid taking a sobriety test and expect to be booked for a hearing.

However, DUI traffic checkpoints do not equate to police taking suspected drivers into custody. The arrest only happens when the officers have reasonable suspicion that the driver is drunk, or if the driver refuses to cooperate. Invoking the presence of a lawyer when the police are only trying to question you can raise unnecessary suspicion towards you. Always remember that you can only seek out legal counsel after you have been properly booked.

DUI checkpoints are just one aspect of life that people may need to brush up on as restrictions slowly ease up. Ask a Las Vegas DUI lawyer if you need to review more points about DUI checkpoints and stops.

Consequences of a Restraining Order in Las Vegas

 

People file restraining orders in Las Vegas for a variety of reasons. In many cases, it is often a preemptive measure to protect the plaintiff and/or their extended family from dealing with intrusive individuals. More commonly, it is used in the face of perceived or real life threats to the plaintiff. Lastly, it is mostly used to keep a spouse away from the children while divorce proceedings are underway.

Some defendants facing a restraining order in Las Vegas may be dismissive about their situation and see it only as a minor inconvenience. After all, the initial order only covers a brief period and the extended period may be long or short depending on the results of the hearing. However, the consequences of an extended restraining order can be more dire than they seem.

Domestic Changes

Restraining orders often require both parties to be far away from each other. The distance can be anywhere between being in the same room to being in the same state. If the plaintiff is your spouse, chances are you share the same abode; receiving the restraining order means you will have to vacate your home for the duration that the order is in effect.

You not only stand to lose your own home when you receive a restraining order. You can also expect to be barred from seeing your children throughout the whole period. If you happen to be very involved in raising your children, receiving a restraining order can put a serious strain on your relationship with them.

Consequences with the Larger Family

Restraining orders often involve not just the immediate parties involved, but their respective extended families as well. A restraining order on your legal record can be used against you in a future family law charge that can be brought against you. For example, a restraining order on your record can cast a shadow on any future inheritance disputes.

You also need to remember that restraining orders are inherently tied to divorce proceedings and child support issues. One of the conditions stipulated in a restraining order may require the adverse party to continue providing financial support. If the order is still in effect even after the custodial parent has remarried, the adverse party is still required to pay, even if they still cannot communicate with their child directly.

Other Legal Effects

One must note that restraining orders don’t just have an effect on domestic issues; they also branch out to other aspects of a person’s life. A restraining order is pretty difficult to expunge from your legal records, and can affect your prospects far into the future. For example, it can bar you from getting better employment and educational opportunities, if not outright preventing you from getting either in the first place.

In addition, having a restraining order on your record can affect your eligibility to purchase and own guns in Nevada. Going back to the point about the difficulty of expunging this on your legal record, it may take a while before you can own a firearm. If you already owned firearms prior to the restraining order, it will make it harder for you to regain your guns.

You must not disregard the dire effects of a restraining order on your personal and professional life. Deal with it promptly and effectively with the help of a veteran defense attorney.