Jackson v. State
128 Nev. 598
| Nev. | 2012Background
- Single act can violate multiple criminal statutes and may support cumulative punishment in a single trial.
- Question presented: whether a defendant can be convicted and punished for both attempted murder and assault/battery on the same act (or attempted murder and not-killing).
- Statutory framework centers on Blockburger’s elements test to determine whether offenses are distinct for purposes of double jeopardy.
- Nevada’s NRS 193.330 authorizes cumulative punishment for attempted murder in tandem with assaultive crimes; analysis proceeds under Blockburger absent express legislative prohibition.
- Courts analyze redundancy by text-based, not fact-based, approaches; Barton rejects “same conduct” in favor of “same elements.”
- Key outcomes: Jackson and Garcia’s convictions for attempted murder, assault, and battery do not violate double jeopardy or redundancy doctrine; video evidence issue deemed harmless.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether multiple punishments violate double jeopardy where attempted murder and assault/battery arise from same act. | Jackson/Garcia argue redundancy/double jeopardy due to same conduct. | State argues separate offenses with distinct elements justify punishment. | No; cumulative punishments authorized; Blockburger applies. |
| Whether Blockburger’s elements test governs and supports cumulative punishment in this context. | Blockburger should preclude excess punishment if offenses share elements. | Legislature authorized multiple punishments via NRS 193.330; elements differ. | Blockburger applied; offenses have distinct elements, thus permissible. |
| Whether Nevada redundancy doctrine (same conduct) invalidates the convictions. | Redundancy doctrine should reverse convictions based on same conduct. | Barton rejects same-conduct; look to elements and legislative authorization. | Disapproved to the extent it endorses same-conduct tests; rely on Blockburger and text. |
| Whether the district court erred in admitting surveillance video under due-process standards. | State failed to preserve full video per Leonard/Brady implications. | Video omissions were non-material, no bad faith. | Harmless error; district court's approach did not affect outcome. |
Key Cases Cited
- Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299 (U.S. 1932) (same-elements test for whether separate offenses exist for double jeopardy)
- Rutledge v. United States, 517 U.S. 292 (U.S. 1996) (presumption against cumulative punishment when offenses are the same)
- Barton v. State, 30 P.3d 1103 (Nev. 2001) (adopts the elements test over “same conduct” in double jeopardy context)
- Salazar v. State, 70 P.3d 749 (Nev. 2003) (redundancy analysis based on same conduct; disapproved later)
- Skiba v. State, 959 P.2d 959 (Nev. 1998) (example of pre-Barton redundancy approach criticized)
- Owens v. State, 680 P.2d 593 (Nev. 1981) (earlier same-conduct approach overturned by Barton)
- Grady v. Corbin, 495 U.S. 508 (U.S. 1990) (same-conduct theory (Grady) later overruled)
- Dixon v. United States, 509 U.S. 688 (U.S. 1993) (reinforced elements test over Grady)
- Daniels v. State, 956 P.2d 111 (Nev. 1998) (materiality/bad-faith test for missing evidence)
- Hunter (Missouri v. Hunter), 459 U.S. 359 (U.S. 1983) (Double Jeopardy: legislature intent governs punishment)