State of Nevada v. Ocean Celestino Camacho

Date: 11-06-2025

Case Number:

Judge: Jacqueline M. Bluth

Court: Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County, Nevada

Plaintiff's Attorney: 141 Nev.Adv.Op. 52

Defendant's Attorney:

Description: Las Vegas, Nevada, criminal defense lawyer represented the Defendant charged with two counts of first-degree murder with the use of a deadly weapon, conspiracy to commit murder, attempted murder with the use of a deadly weapon, and two firearm discharge offenses.

Brandon Morales and two friends, Joshua Nunez and Humberto Oceguedo-Ramos, drove to a Las Vegas gas station, where they met Camacho and Anthony Martinez, Camacho's codefendant at trial. Although Nunez set up the meeting with Martinez as a drug buy, the plan was to steal the drugs.

The Morales group arrived first in his Kia SUV, which Morales backed into a parking space behind the gas station. Camacho and Martinez arrived a few minutes later in a gray Nissan Maxima and parked next to the Kia. Martinez got out of the Maxima and into the backseat of the Kia with Nunez. After Martinez handed Nunez the drugs, the two fought and Nunez shoved Martinez out of the Kia, which sped off. Camacho and Martinez chased after them in the Maxima, opening fire on the Kia as Camacho drove. When Morales saw that Nunez and Oceguedo-Ramos had been shot, he pulled over to call for help. The Maxima did not stop. Nunez and Oceguedo-Ramos were taken to the hospital, where they died later that day.

* * *

Camacho sought to suppress evidence against him and argue that the district court violated his due process right to a fair trial by admitting evidence of Morales's pretrial identification of him. To prevail on this argument, Camacho must show that the "police-organized photo lineup . . . 'was so [unnecessarily] suggestive as to give rise to a very substantial likelihood of irreparable misidentification.'" Perry v. New Hampshire, 565 U.S. 228, 238 (2012) (alteration in original) (quoting Simmons v. United States, 390 U.S. 377, 384 (1968)); Stovall v. Denno, 388 U.S. 293, 301-02 (1967). The analysis proceeds in two steps. See Thompson v. State, 125 Nev. 807, 813, 221 P.3d 708, 713 (2009). First, we ask whether "law enforcement officers use[d] an identification procedure that is both suggestive and unnecessary." Perry, 565 U.S. at 238-39. If so, we move to the second step and consider whether the identification is nevertheless reliable. Id. at 241 (noting that "[t]he due process check for reliability . . . comes into play only after the defendant establishes improper police conduct"). "The factors affecting reliability include 'the opportunity of the witness to view the criminal at the time of the crime, the witness' degree of attention, the accuracy of his prior description of the criminal, the level of certainty demonstrated at the confrontation, and the time between the crime and the confrontation."' Sexton v. Beaudreaux, 585 U.S. 961, 966 (2018) (quoting Manson v. Brathwaite, 432 U.S. 98, 114 (1977)).

Outcome: The Defendant was found guilty.

Affirmed

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments: