Callahan (Russell) v. State ( 2015 )

 would prevent or substantially impair the performance of their duties as
jurors. Weber v. State, 121 Nev. 554, 580, 119 P.3d 107, 125 (2005).
Eleven of the jurors removed for cause indicated that they were unable to
be impartial or had difficulty in remaining impartial because they or
someone close to them had been victims of prior sexual violations. The
district court made findings regarding the visual reactions of at least three
prospective jurors dismissed for cause. In two instances, the district court
asked if defense counsel wanted further inquiry and in both instances
defense counsel agreed that the jurors should be dismissed for cause. The
district court did inquire of many of the prospective jurors whether they
could remain fair and impartial. Callahan has failed to cite to any legal
authority requiring the district court to conduct an individual voir dire
under the facts in this case, and thus we decline to consider this
argument. See Maresca v, State, 103 Nev. 669, 673, 748 P.2d 3, 6 (1987).
Further, even assuming that the district court should have asked every
juror about their ability to remain impartial and fair before dismissing the
jurors for cause, appellant failed to demonstrate that his substantial
rights were prejudiced because he failed to demonstrate that the
dismissals for cause resulted in the empanelling of a jury that was not fair
or impartial. Weber, 121 Nev. at 581, 119 P.3d at 125.
Next, Callahan argues that he was denied a fair trial because
there was no independent evaluation of the abilities of the children to tell
the truth or whether the children were free from outside pressures and
influences. It does not appear from the portions of the record provided
that Callahan ever filed a motion for an independent evaluation, and thus
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
(0 ) r947A oe,
this claim is reviewed for plain error.' LaChance, 130 Nev., Adv. Op. 29,
321 P.3d at 928. Callahan has not demonstrated error that is plain from
the record. During the trial, each of the children was questioned about
their ability to tell the truth from a lie. In considering the childrens'
answers during voir dire and the testimony provided by each child,
Callahan fails to demonstrate that the district court abused its discretion
in finding the children competent to testify, and any inconsistencies in
their testimony went to the weight of the evidence not the competency of
the witnesses. See Evans v. State, 117 Nev. 609, 624, 28 P.3d 498, 509
(2001). The fact that the children were not able to provide dictionary
definitions of "truth" and "lie" does not demonstrate that the children were
incompetent to testify. Id. (setting forth factors to consider in a
competency determination). Callahan further fails to present any specific
argument regarding evidence of coaching or outside pressures and the
documents presented to this court reveal no such evidence.
Finally, Callahan argues that the district court erred in
excluding a portion of the preliminary hearing transcript setting forth an
alleged prior inconsistent statement of IC.R. regarding whether Callahan
had touched her. The district court has "considerable discretion in
determining the relevance and admissibility of evidence." Archanian v.
State, 122 Nev. 1019, 1029, 145 P.3d 1008, 1016 (2006). The district court
excluded the evidence of the allegedly inconsistent statement because the
question posed was compound, the victim was stuttering during the
answer, and there was an interruption. The district court determined that
'While Callahan did make an objection during N.K.'s voir dire, the
basis for the objection was not the lack of an independent evaluation.
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
3
10) 1947A 4,194,
it was not a complete or absolute answer. And despite being asked to
repeat the question during the preliminary hearing because the judge had
not heard the answer, Callahan did not repeat the question. Under these
facts, Callahan fails to demonstrate that the district court abused its
discretion in excluding the partial preliminary hearing transcript. 2
Having concluded that Callahan's arguments are without
ORDER the judgment of conviction AFFIRMED.
f-e.e.A3Z\ , C.J.
Hardesty
Parraguirrear •
\DOtAl ,
Douglas
cc: Hon. Leon Aberasturi, District Judge
Anne W. Laughlin
Attorney General/Carson City
Lyon County District Attorney
Third District Court Clerk
2 We further note that Callahan has not provided this court with a
complete preliminary hearing transcript. From the portion of the
transcript provided, however, the allegedly prior inconsistent statement is
actually inconsistent with K.R.'s prior testimony at the preliminary
hearing.
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
(0) 1907A ce
4