| WHAT: Nevada Supreme Court panel hears oral argument (Synopses are below) WHEN: Wednesday, Oct. 10 at 10:00 and 10:30 a.m. WHERE: Boyd School of Law, Moot Courtroom THE PANEL: Justices Michael Douglas (presiding), Mark Gibbons and Ron Parraguirre CASES: 10:00 a.m. – Jermaine Brass vs. State 10:30 a.m. – Dynamic Transit. vs. Trans Pacific Ventures, Inc. MEDIA: Welcome. Nevada Supreme Court media rules are in effect for all oral arguments. To photograph or video the proceedings, permission must be obtained from the Court by applying in writing to Tracie Lindeman, Clerk of the Court. FAX your written request on company letterhead, signed, to 775-684-1601 (Emailing a request is not permitted. The Court needs a hard copy for its records). There is no request form. One video camera and one still camera will be authorized. Other media outlets will be allowed to join the pool and share the pool feed only if they also apply for permission. Generally the first media to apply (still and video) will become the pool camera, although the media may agree to a different outlet being the pool camera. CONTACT: Bill Gang Public Information Officer Nevada Supreme Court 702-486-3232 702-279-6375 cellular SYNOPSES: October 10, 2012, Oral Arguments Brass (Jermaine) vs. State William S. Boyd School of Law– 10:00 a.m. – Douglas/Gibbons/Parraguirre Dynamic Transit Co. vs. Trans Pacific Ventures, Inc. William S. Boyd School of Law – 10:30 a.m. – Douglas/Gibbons/Parraguirre Brass (Jermaine) vs. State William S. Boyd School of Law– 10:00 a.m. – Douglas/Gibbons/Parraguirre Brass (Jermaine) vs. State Docket No. 56042 William S. Boyd School of Law – 10:00 a.m. – Douglas/Gibbons/Parraguirre This is an appeal from a district court’s entry of a judgment of conviction following a jury verdict where appellant Jermaine Brass was accused and convicted of burglary, grand larceny, conspiracy to commit kidnapping, first-degree kidnapping, conspiracy to commit murder, and first-degree murder with the use of a deadly weapon. He was tried jointly with his brother, Ronnie Brass. The underlying facts of this case provide that the victim, Ernest Mitchell, and his wife Katrina Brass wanted to start a limousine service and purchased tires and rims to install on their limousine. The couple kept the tires and rims inside their home. Upon returning home on January 8, 2009, Ernest and Katrina discovered that the front door had been kicked in and the tires and rims had been stolen. Ernest suspected that one of Katrina’s brothers had stolen the items, and on January 9, 2009, confronted Jermaine Brass. Later that day, Ronnie Brass went to Ernest’s house where an argument ensued that ended with an unidentified second man shooting Ernest multiple times. Jermaine and Ronnie were subsequently arrested and convicted. Jermaine was ordered to serve a life sentence without the possibility of parole on the murder charge, and was given a consecutive sentence of 1 to 20 years for use of the deadly weapon. He also received consecutive sentences of life in prison on the kidnapping count, with parole eligibility after five years and an additional 8 to 36 years on the remaining four counts. Issues: (1) Did the district court err in denying Brass’s motion to sever his trial in violation of the Confrontation Clause of the United States Constitution? (2) Did the district court err in precluding Brass from calling an alibi witness? (3) Did the district court err in rejecting his Batson challenge? (4) Did the district court err in its disparate treatment of for-cause challenges for potential minority and non-minority jurors? (5) Was there insufficient evidence to convict Brass of conspiracy to commit kidnapping and first-degree kidnapping? (6) Was the state’s theory of challenge to fight invalid? (7) Was Brass’s conviction based upon invalid murder theories? (8) Was Brass entitled to a new trial based upon trial counsel’s concession of guilt without his consent? (9) Did the district court err in instructing the jury about the “slight evidence” standard for co-conspirator statements? (10) Were the district court’s instructions to the jury erroneous? (11) Does cumulative error require reversal? (Disclaimer: This synopsis is intended to provide only general information about this case before the Nevada Supreme Court. It is not intended to be all-inclusive or reflect all positions of the parties. To access the documents that have been filed in this matter, type the docket number into the court’s case search page: http://caseinfo.nvsupremecourt.us/public/caseSearch.do) Dynamic Transit Co. vs. Trans Pacific Ventures, Inc. Docket No. 58041 William S. Boyd School of Law – 10:30 a.m. – Douglas/Gibbons/Parraguirre This is an appeal and cross appeal from a district court amended judgment in a convoluted case involving conversion and fraud claims over the interstate transportation of a vehicle. The judgment was certified as final pursuant to NRCP 54(b). Respondent Trevor Small sued appellant Dynamic Transit Company/Knights Company (collectively, “Knights”) for various state-law claims arising from Small’s attempted shipment of a vehicle in interstate commerce. It is undisputed that Knights transported the vehicle interstate and failed to deliver the vehicle to Small. However, the district court concluded that because Knights lacked contractual authority to take possession of the vehicle in the first place, Small’s state-law claims were not preempted by the Carmack Amendment, which provides federal remedial guidelines for interstate cargo carriers. Following a bench trial, the district court ruled in Small’s favor regarding his state-law conversion and fraud claims, and awarded compensatory and punitive damages totaling approximately $350,000. Knights appealed. Small cross-appealed the district court’s decision to grant Knights leave to amend its answer to include the Carmack Amendment as an affirmative defense. Issues: (1) Did the Carmack Amendment preempt Small’s state-law claims? (2) Regardless of the Carmack Amendment, was there sufficient evidence to support Small’s claims for conversion and fraud? (3) Did district court err in awarding loss of use damages? (Disclaimer: This synopsis is intended to provide only general information about this case before the Nevada Supreme Court. It is not intended to be all-inclusive or reflect all positions of the parties. To access the documents that have been filed in this matter, type the docket number into the court’s case search page: http://caseinfo.nvsupremecourt.us/public/caseSearch.do) |
