The State of Nevada v. Kenneth Ray Joseph Pinney, Jr.

Reno, Nevada criminal defense lawyer represented the Defendant charged with home invasion.





The State charged appellant Kenneth Ray Joseph Pinney, Jr., with home invasion while in possession of a deadly weapon, battery with the use of a deadly weapon, and residential burglary while in possession of a deadly weapon. Pinney was alleged to have attacked his neighbor, Jorge Ramirez-More, with a knife on March 25, 2022. Pinney, a military veteran, asserted that he acted in self-defense, knowing that Ramirez-More was a convicted felon who had previously engaged in acts of violence.



Pinney filed a pretrial motion pursuant to NRS 48.045(2) to admit evidence of Ramirez-More's prior acts of violence against other residents of their apartment complex, which Pinney asserted was relevant to his self-defense claim. Shortly after, the State filed a pretrial motion to limit evidence of Ramirez-More's prior criminal convictions to the dates, locations, and number of convictions only. Ramirez-More had been convicted in 1985, pursuant to a single judgment of conviction, of five counts of sexual assault, one count of robbery, one count of burglary, and one count of battery with intent to commit a crime; he was also on lifetime parole. In its motion, the State argued the evidence should be limited because of the risk of unfair prejudice. Pinney filed a cross-motion to admit Ramirez-More's prior convictions, including the types of crimes and Ramirez-More's parole status, asserting that he knew Ramirez-More was a "violent felon" and that the convictions were relevant to how Pinney reacted to Ramirez-More's conduct on March 25.



Joseph Pinney v. State, 140 Nev.Adv.Op. 71, 87090-COA (Nev. App. Nov 21, 2024)

When a defendant moves to introduce a victim's prior violent acts in support of a self-defense claim, the acts may be admitted pursuant to Burgeon if the defendant had knowledge of those acts. Here, the district court abused its discretion by failing to determine whether Ramirez-More's prior acts and convictions were admissible pursuant to Burgeon. Because we cannot say the exclusion of Pinney's evidence was harmless in this case, we reverse Pinney's judgment of conviction and remand for a new trial.