Legal Opinion · Dissent

Honeycutt v. State

Nevada Supreme Court

Decided October 31, 2002No. 35466, 35468Published

1DissentRose, J.

The district court committed reversible error when it refused to sever the trial of the sexual assault and kidnapping charges from the solicitation of murder charge that occurred six months later. *675Because of this error, the refusal to give Honeycutt’s consent instruction, and the prosecutorial misconduct that occurred during trial, I conclude that reversal is mandated.

Severance

Under NRS 173.115(2), a district court can join charges that involve acts close in time and relate to a defendant’s common scheme, plan or motive, or otherwise are tied to each other. But any prejudice the joinder would…

2Cases cited28 opinions

  1. Harrison v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1968
  2. Robert G. Baker v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1968
  3. Harold S. Cross v. United States of America, John L. Jackson v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1964
  4. United States v. Harold M. NewcombCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1993
  5. Jim B. Edmonds v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1959

23 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API