Larson (Sean) v. State C/W 67946

Nevada Supreme Court

Larson (Sean) v. State C/W 67946

DecidedOctober 19, 2015

Docket67202

StatusUnpublished

This text of Larson (Sean) v. State C/W 67946 (Larson (Sean) v. State C/W 67946) 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

Larson (Sean) v. State C/W 67946, (Neb. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

We conclude that Larson fails to demonstrate plain error. Larson has not established that he possessed a Fourth or Fifth Amendment right allowing him to refuse to cooperate with law enforcement under the circumstances. See Meisler v. State, 130 Nev., Adv. Op. 30, 321 P.3d 930, 933 (2014); see also Angle v. State, 113 Nev. 757, 763 n.2, 942 P.2d 177, 181 n.2 (1997). To the extent Larson alleges that relief is warranted because he believed he had such a right, his failure to object prevented this issue from being fully developed; moreover, any error is not "so unmistakable that it is apparent from a casual inspection of the record," Martinorellan v. State, 131 Nev., Adv. Op. 6, 343 P.3d 590, 593 (2015) (quotation marks and citation omitted). Larson also fails to demonstrate actual prejudice. Green, 119 Nev. at 545, 80 P.3d at 95. Second, Larson contends that the district court abused its discretion by denying his motion for a new tria1. 1 See Sanborn v. State, 107 Nev. 399, 406, 812 P.2d 1279, 1284-85 (1991) (describing the factors relevant for consideration regarding a motion for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence). We conclude that no relief is warranted. The district court correctly determined that the newly-offered statements, which were made by Larson's codefendant while requesting leniency at sentencing, had dubious value and would likely be viewed by a jury as incriminating when considered in context. See Cutler v. State, 95 Nev. 427, 429, 596 P.2d 216, 217 (1979). We also agree that the statements

'We decline the State's invitation to reject this claim, but note that appellant's appendix should always include all documents relevant to the claim raised on appeal. See NRAP 30(b); NRAP 30(b)(1). We also decline appellant's invitation to deem the State's response as a confession of error.

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 2 (0) 1947A would not make a different result "probable upon retrial." Sanborn, 107 Nev. at 406, 812 P.2d at 1284. Having considered Larson's contentions and concluded that no relief is warranted, we ORDER the judgment of conviction and the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.

J. Gibbons

cc: Hon. David B. Barker, District Judge Lambrose Brown Attorney General/Carson City Clark County District Attorney Eighth District Court Clerk

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

We conclude that Larson fails to demonstrate plain error. Larson has not established that he possessed a Fourth or Fifth Amendment right allowing him to refuse to cooperate with law enforcement under the circumstances. See Meisler v. State, 130 Nev., Adv. Op. 30, 321 P.3d 930, 933 (2014); see also Angle v. State, 113 Nev. 757, 763 n.2, 942 P.2d 177, 181 n.2 (1997). To the extent Larson alleges that relief is warranted because he believed he had such a right, his failure to object prevented this issue from being fully developed; moreover, any error is not "so unmistakable that it is apparent from a casual inspection of the record," Martinorellan v. State, 131 Nev., Adv. Op. 6, 343 P.3d 590, 593 (2015) (quotation marks and citation omitted). Larson also fails to demonstrate actual prejudice. Green, 119 Nev. at 545, 80 P.3d at 95. Second, Larson contends that the district court abused its discretion by denying his motion for a new tria1. 1 See Sanborn v. State, 107 Nev. 399, 406, 812 P.2d 1279, 1284-85 (1991) (describing the factors relevant for consideration regarding a motion for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence). We conclude that no relief is warranted. The district court correctly determined that the newly-offered statements, which were made by Larson's codefendant while requesting leniency at sentencing, had dubious value and would likely be viewed by a jury as incriminating when considered in context. See Cutler v. State, 95 Nev. 427, 429, 596 P.2d 216, 217 (1979). We also agree that the statements

'We decline the State's invitation to reject this claim, but note that appellant's appendix should always include all documents relevant to the claim raised on appeal. See NRAP 30(b); NRAP 30(b)(1). We also decline appellant's invitation to deem the State's response as a confession of error.

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 2 (0) 1947A would not make a different result "probable upon retrial." Sanborn, 107 Nev. at 406, 812 P.2d at 1284. Having considered Larson's contentions and concluded that no relief is warranted, we ORDER the judgment of conviction and the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.

J. Gibbons

cc: Hon. David B. Barker, District Judge Lambrose Brown Attorney General/Carson City Clark County District Attorney Eighth District Court Clerk

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Larson (Sean) v. State C/W 67946, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/larson-sean-v-state-cw-67946-nev-2015.

Opinion

J. Gibbons

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack