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