Court Opinion

ID: 9614154
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 04:22:57.65662+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:00:45.469657
License: Public Domain

Springer, J.,
concurring in part, and dissenting in part:
While I agree with the majority’s decision to reverse Sanborn’s conviction, I do not agree that the case should be remanded for a new trial. In my view, the instant case is controlled by Sparks v. State, 104 Nev. 316, 319, 759 P.2d 180, 182 (1988). In Sparks, we held that where the State had mishandled evidence (a gun) that was crucial to the defense, the defendant could not be retried. Today, on an almost identical set of facts, we hold that the State may retry Sanborn. As I stated in Haberstroh v. State, 105 Nev. 739, 743, 782 P.2d 1343, 1345 (1989) (Springer, J., concurring), “[Wjhat we disapprove of yesterday, we approve of today.” Because I believe that Sparks should be followed and that we should overrule cases explicitly, or not at all, I dissent.