August 13, 2025, Oral Arguments
Ser (Georgio) vs. State
Carson City – 10:00 a.m. – Panel A25
Rocha vs. State, Dep’t of Health and Human Serv.
Carson City – 10:30 a.m. – Panel A25
Ser (Georgio) vs. State
Docket No. 87890
Carson City – 10:00 a.m. – Panel A25
Appellant sought to conduct a citizen’s arrest of two pornographic actors and producers who appellant believed had committed a federal felony by distributing obscene materials. Appellant went to the victims’ house several times, culminating in Appellant breaking into the house to detain one of the victims, and becoming involved in an altercation. Appellant was arrested and tried, and a jury convicted Appellant of attempted kidnapping, second degree kidnapping with use of a deadly weapon, assault with a deadly weapon, battery causing substantial bodily harm, residential burglary, and stalking. Appellant challenges his conviction. ISSUES: Whether (1) appellant was entitled to assert a citizen’s arrest defense, (2) the district court abused its discretion in excluding evidence relevant to the citizen’s arrest defense, (3) the district court abused its discretion in denying a citizen’s arrest jury instruction, and failing to provide a lesser included offense instruction, (4) the district court abused its discretion in denying Appellant’s motion for a mistrial, (5) sufficient evidence supported Appellant's conviction, and (6) cumulative error warrants reversal.
Rocha vs. State, Dep’t of Health and Human Serv.
Docket No. 87729
Carson City – 10:30 a.m. – Panel A25
Charles Rocha, a forensic specialist, was fired from his position with the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) after a physical altercation with a patient. Following a hearing officer’s determination to reinstate Rocha’s employment, DHHS successfully petitioned for judicial review, challenging the standard used by the hearing officer. The hearing officer then affirmed DHHS’ decision to fire Rocha. Rocha petitioned for judicial review of that decision and was denied. Rocha challenges the sufficiency of evidence to support the order denying his petition, and both parties challenge the district court’s jurisdiction over each other’s petitions.