Both the United States Constitution and the Nevada Constitution create a right to trial by jury for serious offenses, whereas there is no such right for petty offenses. The penalties set by the legislative body that defines a particular offense determine whether that offense is serious. In 2015, the Nevada Legislature amended NRS 202.360(1)(a) to prohibit a person who "[h]as been convicted . . . of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence" from possessing a firearm.

On September 12, 2019, the Nevada Supreme Court issued its decision in Andersen v. Eighth Judicial District Court, Case No. 75208. In that decision, the Court concluded that because NRS 202.360(1)(a) prohibits a person convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence from owning or possessing a firearm, the Nevada Legislature has determined that midemeanor domestic violence is a serious offense. Because misdemeanor domestic violence is now a serious offense under Nevada law, the Court held that a trial by jury is constitutionally required for such offenses, even though those offenses remain misdemeanors.

The Sparks Municipal Court has subject matter jurisdiction over all misdemeanor offenses committed within the City of Sparks, and no applicable authority prohibits the Sparks Municipal Court from conducting trials by jury. Further, the Nevada Supreme Court previously suggested that municipal courts may conduct jury trials where constitutionally required to do so. Donahue v. City of Sparks, 111 Nev. 1281, 903 P.2d 225 (1995). However, there is currently no express authority for the Sparks Municipal Court to conduct jury trials or any description of who may serve as jurors for such trials. In other words, the Nevada Supreme Court has decided that jury trials are now required in some misdemeanor cases, but there is little guidance on how the Sparks Municipal Court should conduct those constitutionally required jury trials.

Bill No. 2767 would provide some of that missing guidance. Section 1 makes legislative findings regarding the benefits to the public health, safety, and welfare of providing the Sparks Municipal Court express authority to conduct jury trials. Section 2 expressly provides that authority to the Sparks Municipal Court in cases in which trial by jury is constitutionally required. Section 3 explains which persons are qualified to serve as jurors in Sparks Municipal Court cases. Finally, Section 4 authorizes the Sparks Municipal Court to adopt policies and procedures necessary to conduct jury trials. Staff recommends that City Council approve Bill No. 2767 in order to satisfy the constitutional requirements identified by the Nevada Supreme Court.

City Council may adopt Bill No. 2767 as written, amend Bill No. 2767 and approve it with amendments, or reject Bill No. 2767 in its entirety. However, rejecting Bill No. 2767 would not change defendants' constitutional rights to jury trials in misdemeanor domestic violence cases.

I move to adopt Bill No. 2767, an ordinance amending Chapter 1.11 of the Sparks Municipal Code by adding thereto provisions expressly allowing Sparks Municipal Court to conduct jury trials in appropriate circumstances; describing persons qualified to act as jurors; granting Sparks Municipal Court authority to establish policies and procedures for jury trials; and providing other matters properly related thereto.