Sheriff v. Spagnola

2 Citing cases

  1. Clark County v. Witzenburg

    122 Nev. 1056 (Nev. 2006)   Cited 39 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that defendant has no constitutional right to confrontation at preliminary hearing

    In this appeal, we decide whether the Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause and Crawford apply at a preliminary examination, and the proper review is de novo. Sheriff v. Spagnola, 101 Nev. 508, 510, 706 P.2d 840, 842 (1985).Rosky v. State, 121 Nev. 184, 190. 111 P.3d 690, 694 (2005); Camacho v. State, 119 Nev. 395, 399, 75 P.3d 370, 373 (2003).

  2. Stewart v. State by and Through Deland

    830 P.2d 306 (Utah Ct. App. 1992)   Cited 8 times
    In Stewart, the court was concerned with newly discovered evidence, specifically testimony deliberately withheld at trial by a testifying witness and testimony of a witness who had been unavailable at the trial.

    Appellate courts of other states have applied similar language in reviewing a trial court's grant or denial of a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. See Sheriff of Clark County v. Spagnola, 101 Nev. 508, 706 P.2d 840, 842 (1985) (per curiam) (limited to review of whether district court committed substantial error in granting relief). The federal courts of appeal review de novo the lower court's decision to grant or deny a petition for a writ of habeas corpus.