Lopez-Bonilla (Milton) v. State ( 2015 )

 to a fair and impartial jury. See id. Accordingly, Lopez-Bonilla fails to
demonstrate a statutory or constitutional basis for reversal based on the
non-disclosure of the jury panel information.
To the extent Lopez-Bonilla claims that a Batson v. Kentucky,
476 U.S. 79 (1986), violation resulted from the district court's denial of the
motion for jury panel information in that the State avoided peremptory
challenges and race-neutral explanations by using the information, he
fails to support this contention with any cogent argument or relevant
authority, and we decline to address it. See Maresca v. State, 103 Nev.
669, 673, 748 P.2d 3, 6 (1987).
Second, Lopez-Bonilla claims that the district court
improperly denied the defense expert the right to use her PowerPoint
presentation while testifying in order to aid the jury regarding the subject
of eyewitness identification. We review the "district court's evidentiary
rulings for an abuse of discretion." Chavez v. State, 125 Nev. 328, 339, 213
P.3d 476, 484 (2009). The district court ruled that the expert could give
testimony based on the scientific studies, journals, and information she
had gathered to create the PowerPoint presentation, provided that the
testimony was relevant and probative to the case, but disallowed the
PowerPoint presentation because it found some of the presentation to be
extremely inflammatory, prejudicial, inappropriate, and biased.
Furthermore, the district court noted that because the PowerPoint
presentation was not timely distributed, there was no opportunity to
refine and choose the appropriate slides. At trial, the expert testified at
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
(0) 1947A
length about the reliability of eyewitness identification, including the
effects of trauma on memory, wrongful convictions based on faulty
eyewitness testimony, and problems in eyewitness cross-racial
identification. Based on the record, we conclude that Lopez-Bonilla has
not demonstrated that the district court abused its discretion by excluding
the PowerPoint presentation.
Third, Lopez-Bonilla contends that the State committed
prosecutorial misconduct during rebuttal closing argument by briefly
displaying photographs of him and the codefendant with the word "guilty"
across the front. When reviewing allegations of prosecutorial misconduct,
we first consider whether the prosecutor's conduct was improper and then
determine whether any improper conduct warrants reversal. Valdez v.
State, 124 Nev. 1172, 1188, 196 P.3d 465, 476 (2008). Lopez-Bonilla's
codefendant objected to the photographs, conceding that their limited use
was proper but objecting to any prolonged display, and the district court
sustained the objection the second time the photographs were shown. It
does not appear that Lopez-Bonilla objected to the use of the photographs,
and even assuming error, we conclude that Lopez-Bonilla fails to establish
that it affected his substantial rights. See Green v. State, 119 Nev. 542,
545, 80 P.3d 93, 95 (2003); cf. Watters v. State, 129 Nev. Adv. Op. No. 94,
313 P.3d 243, 246-49 (2013) (holding that the use of a PowerPoint
presentation during opening statement that includes a slide of the
defendant's booking photograph with the word "GUILTY" written across it
is error as it undermines the presumption of innocence); Artiga-Morales,
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
3
(0) 1947A asfeo:.
130 Nev. Adv, Op. No. 77, 335 P.3d at 182 (rejecting same argument made
by co-defendant).
Having considered Lopez-Bonilla's contentions and concluded
that no relief is warranted, we
ORDER the jOgment of conviction AFFIRMED.
Saitta
cc: Hon. Janet J. Berry, District Judge
Story Law Group
Attorney General/Carson City
Washoe County District Attorney
Washoe District Court Clerk
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
4
(0) 1947A afgeim