Roever v. State, 25239
| Decision Date | 17 August 1995 |
| Docket Number | No. 25239,25239 |
| Citation | 111 Nev. 1052,901 P.2d 145 |
| Parties | Lerlene ROEVER, Appellant, v. The STATE of Nevada, Respondent. |
| Court | Nevada Supreme Court |
A jury convicted Lerlene Evonne Roever of the first degree murder of Ian Wilhite. Roever and Wilhite were lovers and were living together in a trailer home in Pahrump, Nevada. On the morning of January 16, 1993, after allegedly spending the night on the couch in the living room, Roever found Wilhite's dead body in the bedroom. He had one bullet lodged in the base of his skull and had been shot while asleep in bed the previous night. Roever told police that she and Wilhite had argued the night before and therefore, she had slept on the couch in the living room.
The State arrested Roever and charged her with the murder. Roever pleaded not guilty. All the State's evidence against Roever was circumstantial. The investigation did not uncover any physical evidence linking Roever to the crime nor did it uncover the murder weapon. The State's theory was that Roever was the only person with a possible motive and the opportunity to shoot Wilhite. The case went to trial and the jury convicted Roever of first degree murder with use of a deadly weapon. She was sentenced to two consecutive life terms of imprisonment.
The jury also convicted Roever for possession of marijuana after investigators found three small bags of the substance in two different areas of the bedroom she shared with Wilhite. Roever admitted to smoking marijuana on occasion. She received a one-year sentence for this charge.
Roever makes seven arguments on appeal: (1) the evidence is insufficient to convict her of Wilhite's murder; (2) the evidence is insufficient to convict her of possession of marijuana; (3) a new trial is warranted due to improper witness-juror contact; (4) the convictions should be reversed due to the State's violation of discovery; (5) the late endorsement of the State's witness, dispatcher Ruth Lamp, was error; (6) jury instruction 34, the polygraph instruction, failed to properly advise the jury; (7) the district court erred in allowing rebuttal witnesses to testify regarding Roever's character.
We conclude that the witness-juror contact and the State's discovery violation warrant reversal. We hold that these errors resulted in a denial of Roever's constitutional right to a fair trial.
Roever contends that improper witness-juror contact prejudiced her right to a fair trial. According to an affidavit of Timothy White, an investigator for the defense, one of the State's witnesses ignored the court's admonition not to converse with the jury. According to White, Investigator Frank Ruas, a State witness and the primary investigator at the crime scene, conversed with several jurors at two breaks during the trial in the only designated smoking area in the courthouse. White saw Ruas in the smoking room with three female jurors, but did not hear any of their conversation because he did not join them.
After the jury rendered its verdict, Roever's attorney contacted and interviewed several jurors regarding these incidents. One of the jurors in the designated smoking area Robert Catchings, noted that Ruas spent ten minutes with other jurors on the first occasion and approximately five to eight minutes on the second occasion. It appeared to Catchings that Ruas was "trying to enhance his image." Catchings noted that Ruas had a smoke with the jurors after the jurors heard the tapes of his interrogation of Roever. Catchings stated that in the interrogation tapes, Ruas's questioning of Roever got "pretty heated" and Catchings got the impression that Ruas was trying to "soften any images we may have had." Catchings did not hear Investigator Ruas say anything regarding the case to any member of the jury.
Roever's attorney also contacted Audrey Sauvageau and Tyra Van Engen, two jurors who had spoken with Ruas while in the smoking area. Sauvageau told Roever's attorney that her conversation with Ruas had nothing to do with the case.
Based on this information, Roever moved for a new trial alleging juror misconduct. The district court held a hearing on the motion. After receiving testimony on the matter, the district court stated:
[I]t cannot be said with any degree of certainty the contacts made by the witness had no effect on the jury's verdicts. At the very least, the conduct itself suggests the witness was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Leonard v. State
...every incidence of contact between jurors and witnesses requires the granting of a motion for a new trial." Roever v. State, 111 Nev. 1052, 1055, 901 P.2d 145, 146 (1995) (citing Barker v. State, 95 Nev. 309, 313, 594 P.2d 719, 722 (1979)). "[A] new trial must be granted unless it appears, ......
-
Groh v. Westin Operator, LLC
... ... Merely returning to a reserved hotel room in an intoxicated state does not create significant risk. Nor does inviting other people into the room. 41 Further, ... ...
-
Nichols v. Cox
...a juror and a witness merits a new trial, and the matter is subject to the discretion of the district court. [Fn: Roever v. State, 111 Nev. 1052, 1055, 901 P.2d 145,146 (1995)]. A new trial must be granted unless it appears beyond a reasonable doubt that the contact did not prejudice the de......
-
Rodriguez v. Primadonna Company
... ... (quoting Bettilyon Const. Co. v. State Road Commission, 20 Utah 2d 319, 437 P.2d 449, 450 (1968)). Thus, to prevent one innocent party ... ...