Big Pond v. State, 14576
| Decision Date | 03 January 1985 |
| Docket Number | No. 14576,14576 |
| Citation | 101 Nev. 1,692 P.2d 1288 |
| Parties | Kevin Allen BIG POND, Appellant, v. The STATE of Nevada, Respondent. |
| Court | Nevada Supreme Court |
Appellant Kevin Allen Big Pond was convicted by a jury of sexual assault. He appeals, citing numerous assignments of error including the trial court's admission of a statement taken in violation of his Miranda rights, 1 and the court's failure to grant a new trial after discovering that instances of bailiff misconduct and juror misconduct occurred during trial. Because we determine that an accumulation of error prevented appellant from receiving a fair trial, we reverse.
At trial, appellant admitted giving the victim a ride and drinking beer with her in his car, but denied any sexual contact. The prosecution offered evidence of a statement which appellant had earlier made to police in which he denied giving the victim a ride on the night in question. Our review of the record indicates that this statement was taken in violation of appellant's right to remain silent. See Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966). Moreover, it was revealed after trial that there had been misconduct during trial by both a juror and the court bailiff. Two jurors recalled that a male juror made a statement during deliberations to the effect that the absence of semen on the body of a rape victim, as occurred in this case, was not uncommon and happened in over half of the cases. It was also discovered that the bailiff had engaged in a conversation with a juror about the Miranda decision during a trial lunch recess.
We have established certain considerations which are relevant to the decision of whether error is harmless or prejudicial. These include whether the issue of innocence or guilt is close, the quantity and character of the error, and the gravity of the crime charged. See Weakland v. State, 96 Nev. 699, 701, 615 P.2d 252, 254, (1980); Garner v. State, 78 Nev. 366, 375, 374 P.2d 525, 530, (1962).
In this case, appellant was charged with a serious felony. The evidence against him, although substantial enough to convict him in an otherwise fair trial, was not overwhelming. We cannot say without reservation that the verdict would have been the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Leonard v. State
...during closing argument and comments on post-arrest silence mandated reversal of first degree murder conviction); Big Pond v. State, 101 Nev. 1, 692 P.2d 1288 (1985) (because evidence was not overwhelming, cumulative effect of errors which were not egregious standing alone warranted reversa......
-
Nunnery v. State
...even when such an analysis was not conducted at trial”). 18. Having considered the relevant factors, see Big Pond v. State, 101 Nev. 1, 3, 692 P.2d 1288, 1289 (1985), we reject Nunnery's claim of cumulative error. 19. All four prior violent felony convictions included weapon ...
-
Lamb v. State
...errors that did occur were inconsequential and did not affect the verdict, Lamb's claim of cumulative error fails. Big Pond v. State, 101 Nev. 1, 3, 692 P.2d 1288, 1289 (1985). 9. NRS 175.451 provides: “After the jury have retired for deliberation, if there is any disagreement between them ......
-
Valdez v. State
...(1988)). 67. Id. at 659, 56 P.3d at 874. 68. See Dearman v. State, 93 Nev. 364, 367, 566 P.2d 407, 409 (1977). 69. Big Pond v. State, 101 Nev. 1, 3, 692 P.2d 1288, 1289 (1985). 1. Flanagan v. State, 112 Nev. 1409, 1423, 930 P.2d 691, 700 (1996). 2. Garcia v. State, 121 Nev. 327, 334, 113 P.......