Batin v. State
Nevada Supreme Court
38 P.3d 880, 118 Nev. 61 (2002)
- Written by Josh Lee, JD
Facts
Marlon Batin (defendant) worked for the Nugget Hotel and Casino (Casino) as a slot mechanic. His job duties included fixing jammed coins and refilling the hopper, the part of the slot machine that paid out coins. The hopper was separate from the bill validator, which was where paper currency was kept. As a slot mechanic, Batin was not permitted to touch or handle the paper currency inside the bill validator. His only duty was to safeguard the funds while working on the machine. If a customer required a cash refund, Batin was required to contact a supervisor to take any money out of the machine to give to the customer. The Casino discovered that Batin was taking funds from certain slot machines. The Casino noted that the slot machines missing money had been accessed by Batin and that he had turned off the power while he worked on them, which avoided their usual monitoring devices. No other slot mechanics turned off the power on the machines missing money. The Casino calculated that approximately $40,000 had been taken. The State of Nevada (plaintiff) charged Batin with embezzlement, and a jury convicted him. Batin appealed. A panel of three judges initially heard the appeal and affirmed. Batin then petitioned the full Nevada Supreme Court for review en banc.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Leavitt, J.)
Dissent (Maupin, C.J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 812,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.