Sangster (Brian) v. State

• Court: Nevada Supreme Court
• Decided: March 14, 2013
• Docket: 60885
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

this case is responsible for the error at his first trial and instead faults the system that allows for jurors to ask questions, but submits that because the problem is caused by a procedure it should be attributed to the prosecutor. We find this argument unpersuasive, and conclude that double jeopardy is not implicated because Sangster consented to the mistrial and the error was not caused by the State. Second, Sangster argues that the district court erred by instructing the jury that he was innocent "until" proven guilty as opposed to innocent "unless" proven guilty. Sangster asserts that using the word "until" implies that the jury should inevitably find him guilty, nullifying the presumption of innocence. However, the instruction also stated that the State had a burden of proving the elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt and that Sangster was entitled to a verdict of not guilty if the jury had a reasonable doubt as to his guilt. Other instructions also emphasized the State's burden. Accordingly, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion by giving the instruction. See Blake v. State, 121 Nev. 779, 799, 121 P.3d 567, 580 (2005) (instruction stating that the defendant was innocent until proven guilty plainly implied that guilt might not be proven). Having considered Sangster's contentions and concluded that they are without merit, we ORDER the judgment of conviction AFFIRMED.

Gibbons

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA

2 (0) 1947A cc: Hon. Michelle Leavitt, District Judge Clark County Public Defender Attorney General/Carson City Clark County District Attorney Eighth District Court Clerk

3 (0) 1947A