Skip to main content

Morales v. State

Citations

  • 143 P.3d 463
  • 122 Nev. 966
  • 122 Nev. Adv. Rep. 83
  • 2006 Nev. LEXIS 109

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 prosecutor’s statement that “there was no presumption of innocence anymore” was “improper” and constituted “plain error” (quotation simplified)
  • holding that bifurcation procedure accomplishes the same policy goals as the severance mandated in Brown
  • holding that bifurcation procedure accomplishes the same policy goals as the severance mandated in Brown
  • holding that an unpreserved violation of the defendant's presumption of innocence did not warrant reversal
  • concluding that the prosecutor erred by stating that \a presumption of innocence [existed] at the beginning of trial\ but that presumption no longer existed after the state met its burden of proof
  • concluding that the prosecutor erred by stating that \a presumption of innocence [existed] at the beginning of trial\ but that presumption no longer existed after the state met its burden of proof

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Maupin, Gibbons, Hardesty

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

9 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

10 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

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.