304 P.3d 396
Nev.2013Background
- Truesdell lived with Bennett in Las Vegas; he was not listed as a resident on the lease.
- On Oct 26, 2010, Truesdell struck Bennett; he was arrested and later pled no contest to DV charges.
- Bennett obtained a five-day TPO on Oct 28, 2010, prohibiting Truesdell within 100 yards of the apartment.
- The TPO was served that day; on Nov 1, Truesdell returned to the apartment with no officer present.
- On Nov 2, Truesdell again went to the apartment, knocked, then forcibly entered; Bennett called 911 and he was arrested.
- On Nov 4, the State filed a complaint for invasion of the home; trial followed over three days, focusing on TPO validity and related issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Collateral attack on TPO in criminal proceeding | Truesdell contends collateral attack allowed due to TPO validity. | State argues collateral bar rule precludes collateral challenges. | Not allowed; must challenge TPO in issuing court. |
| Sufficiency of evidence to prove home invasion | TPO validity issues render conviction unsupported. | Evidence shows willful violation of TPO and entry into the home. | Sufficient evidence; rational juror could convict. |
| Constitutionality/vagueness of NRS 205.067(1) | Statute vague for lacking intent element and man-entry scope. | Statute provides notice; home invasion as general intent crime. | Statute constitutional; provides notice and intent element. |
| Jury instructions: trespass/malicious destruction | Trespass/malicious destruction should be lesser offenses. | Not lesser included offenses; proper distinction. | District court did not abuse discretion; not lesser included. |
Key Cases Cited
- Wood v. Commonwealth, 178 S.W.3d 500 (Ky. 2005) (collateral attack on an injunction in later contempt proceeding)
- Small v. State, 843 A.2d 932 (N.H. 2004) (collateral bar doctrine; injunctive order must be challenged in proper proceeding)
- State v. Chavez, 601 P.2d 301 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1979) (collateral challenge to injunction in contempt not allowed)
- Mclellan v. State, 124 Nev. 263 (Nev. 2008) (plain-error review; evidentiary sufficiency under enhanced sentence rule)
- Peck v. State, 116 Nev. 840 (Nev. 2000) (trespass not a lesser included offense of invasion of the home)