Corpuz (Ralph) v. State

CourtNevada Supreme Court
DecidedNovember 12, 2014
Docket64936
StatusUnpublished

This text of Corpuz (Ralph) v. State (Corpuz (Ralph) v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Nevada Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Corpuz (Ralph) v. State, (Neb. 2014).

Opinion

Even assuming Corpuz did not consent to the blood draw, we have

recently held that, while the warrantless, nonconsensual search provided

for in NRS 484C.160(7) is unconstitutional, the good-faith exception to the

exclusionary remedy applies when an officer reasonably and in good faith

relied on the constitution validity of the statute. See Byars v. State,.

Nev. , P.3d (Adv. Op. No. 85, October 16, 2014). Therefore,, the

district court did not err by denying Corpuz's motion to suppress.

Next, Corpuz claims that the district court abused its

discretion by denying his motion for a new trial based on prosecutorial

misconduct. We review the denial of a motion for a new trial for an abuse

of discretion. See Steese u. State, 114 Nev. 479, 490, 960 P.2d 321, 328

(1998). When considering allegations of prosecutorial misconduct, we first

determine whether the prosecutor's conduct was improper and then

whether any improper conduct warrants reversal. See Valdez u. State, 124

Nev. 1172, 1188, 196 P.3d 465, 476 (2008). Here, the prosecutor argued

that Corpuz may have wanted to prove his car was faster than another,

and Corpuz timely objected. After a brief bench conference, during which

Corpuz claimed that the argument was not supported by evidence and was

speculation, the district court sustained the objection, and the prosecutor

immediately moved on. Even assuming that the argument constituted

prosecutorial misconduct, we conclude that it was harmless error. See

Truesdell v. State, 129 Nev. , 304 P.3d 396, 402 (2013). Therefore,

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 2 (0) 1947A the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Corpuz's motion

for a new trial.

Having considered Corpuz's claims and concluded that no

relief is warranted, we

ORDER the judgment of conviction AFFIRMED.

Hardesty

° D1774 j. Douglas

cc: Hon. Michelle Leavitt, District Judge Mueller Hinds & Associates Attorney General/Carson City Clark County District Attorney Eighth District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 3 (0) I947A

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Truesdell v. State
304 P.3d 396 (Nevada Supreme Court, 2013)
Steese v. State
960 P.2d 321 (Nevada Supreme Court, 1998)
Valdez v. State
196 P.3d 465 (Nevada Supreme Court, 2008)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Corpuz (Ralph) v. State, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/corpuz-ralph-v-state-nev-2014.