Nevada Supreme Court· 12/10/2009

Thompson v. State

Citations

221 P.3d 708
125 Nev. 807
125 Nev. Adv. Rep. 59
2009 Nev. LEXIS 74

How courts have described this case

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

stating that the determination of whether a proposed expert’s testimony is admissible is within the district court’s discretion
concluding a lineup was not impermissibly suggestive where the photographs used matched the general description of the perpetrator
referring to the abuse-of-discretion standard in summarizing the appellant's challenge to the pretrial identification evidence
rejecting a due process challenge to the identification by a witness who described her assailant as wearing a white T-shirt, despite that only the defendant and one other filler were wearing white T-shirts in the photo array
“A photographic identification must 8 be set aside only if the photographic identification procedure was so impermissibly suggestive as to give rise to a very substantial 9 likelihood of irreparable misidentification.” (internal brackets and quotation marks omitted)
internal SUPREME Collin OF NEVADA 16 ( 1947A 4ESta, quotation marks omitted). The State had to prove that Kincade (1) knowingly and willfully (2) used or attempted to use the internet to view child pornography on the charged websites (3

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

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

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

7 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

22 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.