Legal Opinion

Hymon v. State

Nevada Supreme Court

Decided May 26, 2005No. 41378PublishedCited by 20 opinions

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

  1. Faretta v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1975
  2. Illinois v. AllenSupreme Court of the United States · 1970
  3. McKaskle v. WigginsSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
  4. Godinez v. MoranSupreme Court of the United States · 1993
  5. Deck v. MissouriSupreme Court of the United States · 2005

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

3Cited by20 opinions

  1. State v. DixonArizona Supreme Court · 2011
  2. Nelson v. StateNevada Supreme Court · 2007
  3. O'NEILL v. StateNevada Supreme Court · 2007
  4. Hooks v. StateNevada Supreme Court · 2008
  5. Clarence Dixon v. Charles RyanCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2019

15 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