Barbeau (Earl) v. Dist. Ct. (State)
This text of Barbeau (Earl) v. Dist. Ct. (State) (Barbeau (Earl) v. Dist. Ct. (State)) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Nevada Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
evidentiary rulings, as those rulings are discretionary" and defendant may appeal if convicted); Hardin v. Griffin, 98 Nev. 302, 304, 646 P.2d 1216, 1217 (1982) (observing that challenges to admissibility of evidence on constitutional grounds "should be made in a motion to suppress evidence, and review of the district court's ruling may be sought following trial and conviction"). Accordingly, we deny the petition. See NRAP 21(b). It is so ORDERED.'
cc: Hon. Jessie Elizabeth Walsh, District Judge Oronoz & Ericsson Brown Law Office Attorney General/Carson City Clark County District Attorney Eighth District Court Clerk
"The petition includes a request for a stay of the trial scheduled for July 15, 2013. Because such a request must be made in separate motion that complies with NRAP 27 and explains why a stay is warranted, petitioner's request is improper. Nevertheless, considering our decision, we deny petitioner's request as moot.
SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 2 (0) 1947A
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Barbeau (Earl) v. Dist. Ct. (State), Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/barbeau-earl-v-dist-ct-state-nev-2013.