Nevada Supreme Court· 6/10/2004

Browning v. State

Citations

91 P.3d 39
120 Nev. 347
120 Nev. Adv. Rep. 39
2004 Nev. LEXIS 45

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

holding that a booking photo is not prejudicial when there is no danger that the jury will infer that the photo was taken with respect to a different crime
concluding that a booking photograph “had no appreciable prejudicial effect since jurors had no reason to assume that it had been taken in any other case but the one for which [appellant] was being tried”
concluding that a mug shot \had no appreciable prejudicial effect since jurors had no reason to assume that it has been taken in any other case but the one for which [appellant] was being tried\
concluding that a booking photograph \had no appreciable prejudicial effect since jurors had no reason to assume that it had been taken in any other case but the one for which [appellant] was being tried\
providing that a defendant's mugshot \had no appreciable prejudicial effect since jurors had no reason to assume that it had been taken in any other case but the one for which [the defendant] was being tried\
noting a claim warrants no consideration when the appellant fails to “provide[] any cogent argument, legal analysis, or supporting factual allegations”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Shearing, Rose, Maupin

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

29 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

37 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Other cases with this name

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.