Skip to main content

Lamb v. State

Citations

  • 251 P.3d 700
  • 127 Nev. 26
  • 127 Nev. Adv. Rep. 3
  • 2011 Nev. LEXIS 4

How courts have described this case

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

  • holding that we review the district court's factual findings regarding suppression issues for clear error and the legal consequences of those findings de novo
  • holding that a district court does not abuse its discretion by prohibiting questions to indoctrinate
  • noting that “although NRS 50.065 differs from FRE 606(b) in its phrasing, Meyer . . . does not consider the differences significant”
  • concluding that admission of a witness's testimony expressing fear that the defendant would shoot her, called for balancing probative value against the risk of unfair prejudice under NRS 48.035(1), but did not implicate a prior bad act under NRS 48.045(2)
  • providing that NRS 48.045 is not implicated where the conduct referenced is not a bad act or crime
  • reiterating that failing to specifically object below on the grounds urged on appeal precludes appellate consideration on those grounds, unless plain error is demonstrated

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Douglas, Pickering, Hardesty

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

23 cases in this archive cite 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.