Mata (Francisco) v. State ( 2015 )

 including Mata's statement that he did not want a mistrial, (2) considered
several alternatives to a mistrial and chose the one that was least harmful
to Mata's rights, and (3) acted deliberately instead of abruptly in deciding
not to declare a mistrial sua sponte. See Glover ix Eighth Judicial Dist.
Court, 125 Nev. 691, 709-10, 220 P.3d 684, 697 (2009).
We conclude that the district court did not err in not applying
the marital privilege to prevent Mata's sister-in-law from testifying,
because the marital privilege only applies to spouses. NRS 49.295(1)(b).
Finally, we conclude that the district court did not err in
giving several jury instructions over Mata's objections because the
challenged instructions were appropriate and contained correct
statements of Nevada law. See Cortinas V. State, 124 Nev. 1013, 1019, 195
P.3d 315, 319 (2008) (holding that we review a district court's rulings on
jury instructions for an abuse of discretion, but review whether an
instruction is a correct statement of law de novo). Accordingly, wel
ORDER the judgment of conviction AFFIRMED.
, J.
J.
Gibbons
Pitleu 12,y
7 J.
Pickering
J
'Mata's cumulative error argument fails because the district court
did not err. We have considered the parties' remaining arguments and
conclude that they are without merit.
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
(0) 1947A ceD
cc: Hon. Valerie Adair, District Judge
Coyer Law Office
Attorney General/Carson City
Clark County District Attorney
Eighth District Court Clerk
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
3
(0) 1947A ce