Matlean (James) v. State ( 2013 )


Menu:
  •                    district court's inquiry by stating that it was not sure which person was
    telling the truth about the girlfriend's role in the conspiracy. These
    comments were within the State's discretion to "comment upon the
    circumstances of the crime," and we conclude that the State did not breach
    its obligations under the plea agreement.
    Second, Matlean contends that the district court committed
    reversible error by not allowing him to cross-examine a witness who
    presented victim impact testimony. Matlean did not make a request to
    cross-examine the witness. Therefore, Matlean's contention that the
    district court prevented him from doing so lacks merit and he is not
    entitled to relief on this claim.
    Third, Matlean contends that the district court was
    improperly influenced by the victim impact testimony of the victim's wife.
    "So long as the record does not demonstrate prejudice resulting from
    consideration of information or accusations founded on facts supported
    only by impalpable or highly suspect evidence, this court will refrain from
    interfering with the sentence imposed." Silks v. State, 
    92 Nev. 91
    , 94, 
    545 P.2d 1159
    , 1161 (1976). The witness' statement was not impalpable or
    highly suspect evidence. See Randell v. State, 
    109 Nev. 5
    , 7-8, 
    846 P.2d 278
    , 280 (1993). Therefore, we conclude that Matlean is not entitled to
    relief on this claim.
    Fourth, Matlean asks this court to overrule our opinion in
    Randell v. State, 
    109 Nev. 5
    , 7-8, 
    846 P.2d 278
    , 280 (1993), permitting a
    SUPREME COURT
    OF
    NEVADA
    2
    (0) 1947A    App
    1E1
    -      :1-.11WT,7K.4Micr-wt1 AST.C12 -INEPSTAXA,-
    ,e       -*T-    M                    WEIRMEiEfi
    witness to express an opinion as to a defendant's sentence in a noncapital
    case. Matlean has offered no persuasive authority in support of his
    argument and we therefore decline his invitation to revisit this issue.
    Having considered Matlean's contentions and concluded that
    he is not entitled to relief, we
    ORDER the judgment of conviction AFFIRMED.
    Hardesty
    cc: Hon. Michael P. Gibbons, District Judge
    Kenneth A. Stover
    Attorney General/Carson City
    Douglas County District Attorney/Minden
    Douglas County Clerk
    SUPREME COURT
    OF
    NEVADA
    3
    (0) 1947A
    MENEMINNIIIMMEE               &WM
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 60720

Filed Date: 4/10/2013

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/30/2014