Eliason (Jason) v. State ( 2014 )

 admissibility were met. See Tinch v. State, 113 Nev. 1170, 1176, 946 P.2d
1061, 1064-65 (1997), modified by Bigpond v. State, 128 Nev. „ 270
P.3d 1244, 1249-50 (2012). The district court also agreed to provide the
jury with a limiting instruction prior to the admission of the evidence and
again before deliberations. See Tavares v. State, 117 Nev. 725, 733, 30
P.3d. 1128, 1133 (2001), modified by Mclellan, 124 Nev. at 270, 182 P.3d
at 111. We agree with the State that the evidence in question did not
implicate a prior bad act and was admissible independent of NRS
48.045(2) and Tinch, and that a limiting instruction was not required.
Therefore, we conclude that the district court reached the right result,
albeit for the wrong reason, in granting the State's motion in limine and
admitting the knife-possession evidence. See Wyatt v. State, 86 Nev. 294,
298, 468 P.2d 338, 341 (1970) ("If a judgment or order of a trial court
reaches the right result, although it is based on an incorrect ground, the
judgment or order will be affirmed on appeal."). Accordingly, we
ORDER the judgment of conviction AFFIRMED.
Pickering
—94jtaaajters Saitta
Parraguirre
cc: Hon. Janet J. Berry, District Judge
Washoe County Public Defender
Attorney General/Carson City
Washoe County District Attorney
Washoe District Court Clerk
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
(0) 1947A e