The Court determined that a defendant is not entitled to cross examine examiners who find him incompetent at a competency hearing where neither party subpoenaed the examiner to appear at said competency hearing. The Court further decided that the State’s failure to transport an incompetent Defendant to competency treatment within seven days of receiving a court order did not warrant the dismissal of charges against the Defendant. The Court also held that the District Court did not commit a structural error when Defendant moved to strike the jury venire. The Court went on to decide that Defendant was not entitled to a new jury venire when the Defendant fails to show that the underrepresentation of a distinctive group meets the requirements articulated in Williams v. State. The Court further determined that the District Court did not abuse its discretion in determining how voir dire was conducted when the Court asks peremptory questions of the potential jurists before the parties could strike jurors for cause or use their peremptory challenges. The Court held that a party may not strike a juror based on the juror’s sexual orientation, but that a party may strike a juror for non-discriminatory reasons. The Court further decided that the district court did not err in correcting Morgan’s counsel’s closing statements when counsel misstated a fact. Finally, the Court found that there was sufficient evidence to uphold Morgan’s ultimate conviction.
Evans, Ronald, "Morgan vs. State of Nevada., 134 Nev. Adv. Op. 27 (May 3, 2018)" (2018). Nevada Supreme Court Summaries. 1163.