Skip to main content

Perez v. State

Citations

  • 129 Nev. 850
  • 313 P.3d 862
  • 129 Nev. Adv. Rep. 90
  • 2013 WL 6224463
  • 2013 Nev. LEXIS 110

How courts have described this case

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

  • holding expert testimony on grooming is admissible in prosecutions for child sexual assault on a case-by-case basis to be determined by the trial court
  • explaining that testimony of how one of the goals of grooming is to reduce the likelihood of disclosure was admissible as \beneficial to the jury in evaluating the evidence of abuse and assessing the victim's credibility\
  • suggesting that a lay juror may not need expert testimony to explain that a defendant's behavior SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 12 (0) 947A kNirr 4'i t-tSbc Mika demonstrated \a definite design on engaging in sexual conduct with the victim\
  • applying plain error where the party fails to object at trial
  • “A witness may not vouch for the testimony of another or testify as to the truthfulness of another witness.”
  • \A witness may not vouch for the testimony of another or testify as to the truthfulness of another witness.\

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Agree, Cherry, Douglas, Gibbons, Hardesty, Parraguirre, Pickering, Saitta

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

15 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

35 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.