Roderos v. State

• Decision Date: 26 August 2022
• Docket Number: 83785
• Parties: MICHAEL MANZANO RODEROS, Appellant, v. THE STATE OF NEVADA, Respondent
• Court: Supreme Court of Nevada

MICHAEL MANZANO RODEROS, Appellant,
v.
THE STATE OF NEVADA, Respondent

No. 83785

Supreme Court of Nevada

August 26, 2022

UNPUBLISHED OPINION

Leslie A. Park

Attorney General/Carson City

ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE

This is an appeal from a judgment of conviction, pursuant to a jury verdict, of child abuse or endangerment, battery constituting domestic violence, and coercion constituting domestic violence. Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County; Mary Kay Holthus, Judge.

Appellant Michael Roderos was involved in an altercation with his wife Samantha and his daughter Noelani, who was 16 years old at the time. Both Samantha and Noelani testified at trial that a conflict began after they arrived home from an out-of-town trip and found Michael drinking in the garage. Samantha testified that the argument escalated when Michael grabbed and twisted her hands. Thereafter, Samantha decided it was best if she and their minor son, who had been at home with Michael while Samantha and Noelani were out of town, left the house, so Samantha went upstairs to pack a bag. Noelani also went upstairs to her bedroom to call a friend to come pick her up. Noelani testified that Michael followed her, argued with her, and then backhanded her. Samantha testified that when she tried to leave the house with their son, Michael blocked the front door and attempted to take her suitcase away from her. Noelani testified that her friend eventually arrived with her father, and,

1

after she got in the car, the father drove around the block and called the police. Michael was arrested the next day at his place of work, where Samantha also worked. A jury found Michael guilty on all three counts, and the district court sentenced him to 56-144 months.

Michael appeals, arguing that (1) the district court erred in sustaining the State's hearsay objection after his counsel tried to impeach Noelani's testimony, which limited his due process right to assert an adequate defense; (2) there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction; and (3) cumulative error warrant reversal.^[1]

During trial, Michael tried to elicit testimony from a police officer to impeach Noelani's testimony regarding which hand Michael used when he backhanded her. The State objected on hearsay grounds, and the district court sustained the objection. Michael does not argue that a hearsay exception applies or that the district court's ruling on the State's objection was incorrect. See NRS 51.035 (defining hearsay). Instead, Michael maintains that the district court should have allowed the line of questioning and admitted the police report containing Noelani's statement

2

anyway because his due process...