Court Opinion

ID: 9796140
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 03:50:12.307643+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:48:16.140989
License: Public Domain

Gibbons, J.,
dissenting:
I respectfully disagree with the majority. In accidents involving drunk driving, we have long established the rule ‘ ‘that a course of conduct resulting in harm to multiple victims gives rise to multiple charges of the offense.”1 Although this case does not involve the drunk driving statute, NRS 484.3795, it involves the same societal interests. The Legislature was concerned with minimizing the injuries in drunk driving accidents when it enacted NRS 484.3795.2 The same is true for violations of NRS 484.219. The Legislature’s motive for enacting both statutes was to protect citizens. This is evidenced by the reference in NRS 484.219 to NRS 484.223, which places a duty on the driver to provide information and give aid.
Since we have upheld multiple convictions based on multiple victims in a drunk driving accident, we should uphold multiple convictions based on multiple victims here as well.3 Because the Legislature enacted NRS 484.219 for the purpose of protecting the public in the same manner as NRS 484.3795, there should be a separate count for each victim. We should follow established precedent and use the same analogy in this case. Firestone caused a head-on collision which directly injured three individuals. NRS 484.219(1) requires that “[t]he driver of any vehicle involved in an accident on a highway . . . resulting in bodily injury . . . shall remain at the scene of the accident.” NRS 484.219 also requires the driver to comply with NRS 484.223 to give information and render aid. Firestone did not comply with the statute because he im*19mediately left the scene of the accident. Firestone did not give the victims any information, nor did he provide needed aid to those suffering from injuries that he caused. A jury found him guilty on three counts of violating NRS 484.219. Firestone’s convictions should be upheld in the interest of protecting the public and serving justice. Therefore, I would affirm the order of the district court denying post-conviction relief.

 Galvan v. State, 98 Nev. 550, 555, 655 P.2d 155, 157 (1982).

. Id

 Woods v. State, 114 Nev. 468, 478, 958 P.2d 91, 97 (1998).