Hymon v. State
Nevada Supreme Court
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
By the Court,
Hardesty, J.:
During the guilt phase of the trial, appellant Roderick Lamar Hymon, who was representing himself, was required to wear an electronic stun belt as a result of his threat to kill the trial judge. On appeal, we address under what circumstances a defendant in a criminal trial may be required, as a security measure, to wear a remote-controlled electronic stun belt.
FACTS
On April 8, 2001, Betty Crisman was' alone in the lobby area of Chick’s Tire & Auto Repair in Las Vegas when Hymon entered and walked to the counter. Hymon suddenly turned around and grabbed…
2Cases cited34 opinions
- Faretta v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1975
- Illinois v. AllenSupreme Court of the United States · 1970
- McKaskle v. WigginsSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
- Godinez v. MoranSupreme Court of the United States · 1993
- Deck v. MissouriSupreme Court of the United States · 2005
29 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by20 opinions
- State v. DixonArizona Supreme Court · 2011
- Nelson v. StateNevada Supreme Court · 2007
- O'NEILL v. StateNevada Supreme Court · 2007
- Hooks v. StateNevada Supreme Court · 2008
- Clarence Dixon v. Charles RyanCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2019
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.