Nevada Supreme Court· 1/30/2001

Leonard v. State

Citations

17 P.3d 397
117 Nev. 53
117 Nev. Adv. Rep. 6
2001 Nev. LEXIS 5

How courts have described this case

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

holding that \abandoned and malignant heart\ language is essential and informs the jury of the distinction between express and implied malice
holding that a mere \hoped-for conclusion\ that the evidence in question supported defendant's case is insufficient to show prejudice
holding that the statutory language defining implied malice accurately informs the jury of the distinction between express and implied malice
holding that the statutory language defining implied malice is well established in Nevada and accurately informs the jury of the distinction between express and implied malice
concluding that the district court did not abuse its discretion when it refused to allow individual voir dire of all prospective jurors because “the district court ensured sufficient inquiry of the prospective jurors, including inquiry into pretrial publicity”
noting that \Mlle trial court is better able to view a prospective juror's demeanor than a subsequent reviewing court\

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Young, Maupin, Rose, Shearing, Agosti, Leavitt

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

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

Cites

80 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.