Harsh (Thomas) v. State

• Court: Nevada Supreme Court
• Decided: November 12, 2014
• Docket: 65060
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

Mortensen v. State, 115 Nev. 273, 286, 986 P.2d 1105, 1114 (1999) (internal quotation marks omitted). We review the district court's decision to grant or deny a new trial for abuse of discretion. Servin v. State, 117 Nev. 775, 792, 32 P.3d 1277, 1289 (2001). The record reveals that the district court reviewed the pleadings, considered the parties' arguments, and found that the bankruptcy documents were not newly discovered evidence because the victim testified about her pending bankruptcy proceedings at trial, the documents merely confirmed the victim's testimony that she did not change the registration on her car while the bankruptcy proceedings were pending, the documents were inadmissible extrinsic evidence under NRS 50.085(3), and the documents were cumulative because defense counsel thoroughly cross-examined the victim about her ownership of the car and her bankruptcy proceedings.' The district court further found that Harsh failed to demonstrate that the documents would be offered for something more than contradicting, impeaching, or discrediting a former witness or that the trial result would have been different if the witness was impeached with the documents. And the district court determined that Harsh failed to make a factual showing that would justify an evidentiary hearing and did not satisfy the requirements for a new tria1. 2

'Our review of the trial transcript reveals that testimony regarding the victim's bankruptcy proceedings was brought out during direct- examination but was not explored on cross-examination.

2 During the hearing on the motion for a new trial, Harsh informed the district court that the evidentiary hearing was necessary to determine whether defense counsel could have discovered or produced the bankruptcy documents at trial with the exercise of due diligence.

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 2 (0) 1947A ceo Having reviewed the evidence at issue and the record before us, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Harsh's request for an evidentiary hearing and motion for a new trial. Accordingly, we ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.

tee,4,t1/4-1 , J. Hardesty

J. Ch24T. Douglas Cherry

cc: Hon. Douglas Smith, District Judge Oronoz & Ericsson Attorney General/Carson City Clark County District Attorney Eighth District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 3 (01 1947A cafe4.9

WI 1