Albert David Gallegos v. The State of Nevada

Summary

The Nevada Supreme Court held that NRS 202.360(1)(b), which prohibited firearm possession by a person who is a “fugitive from justice,” was unconstitutionally vague. The court concluded that the statute failed to provide adequate notice of prohibited conduct and lacked standards to prevent arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement. The court reversed Albert David Gallegos’s conviction.

Holdings

1. NRS 202.360(1)(b) is unconstitutionally vague under the first prong of the vagueness test because the Nevada Legislature did not define "fugitive from justice," and the phrase lacks a well-established and ordinarily understood meaning sufficient to tell ordinary citizens what conduct is prohibited.
2. NRS 202.360(1)(b) is unconstitutionally vague under the second prong of the vagueness test because it provides no clear standards to guide law enforcement officers, prosecutors, courts, or juries in determining who is a "fugitive from justice" subject to the firearm prohibition.
3. Because NRS 202.360(1)(b) is unconstitutionally vague and violates the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause, Gallegos's judgment of conviction must be reversed.

Questions Presented

1. Whether NRS 202.360(1)(b), which prohibits firearm possession by a person who is "a fugitive from justice," is unconstitutionally vague for failing to provide adequate notice of the prohibited conduct.
2. Whether NRS 202.360(1)(b) is unconstitutionally vague because it lacks standards sufficient to prevent arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement.

Disposition

reversed