Willing (Nicholas) v. State ( 2014 )

 that, even if the jury had been informed of the theft case, there was not a
reasonable likelihood the result at trial would have been different because
Sexton's credibility was explored at trial, other testimony incriminated
Willing, and substantial evidence was presented which demonstrated that
it would have been almost impossible for Sexton to plan the crimes
without Willing's involvement. See Sanborn v. State, 107 Nev. 399, 406,
812 P.2d 1279, 1284-85 (1991) (newly discovered evidence must be "not
only an attempt to contradict, impeach, or discredit a former witness,
unless the witness is so important that a different result would be
reasonably probable"); King v. State, 95 Nev. 497, 500, 596 P.2d 501, 503
(1979). 2 Accordingly, we
ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED. 3
Pickering
2 Willing also contends that he was deprived of his right to confront
Sexton. Although we need not consider this contention because it does not
appear that it was raised below, see Davis v. State, 107 Nev. 600, 606, 817
P.2d 1169, 1173 (1991), overruled on other grounds by Means v. State, 120
Nev. 1001, 103 P.3d 25 (2004), we note that any error would have been
harmless, see Medina v. State, 122 Nev. 346, 355, 143 P.3d 471, 476
(2006).
3 Thefast track response does not comply with the Nevada Rules of
Appellate Procedure because it is not double-spaced. See NRAP 32(a)(4);
NRAP 3C(h)(1). We caution counsel for the State that future failure to
comply with the rules of this court when filing briefs may result in the
imposition of sanctions. See NRAP 3C(n).
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
(0) 1947A e
cc: Hon. Robert W. Lane, District Judge
Donald J. Green
Nye County District Attorney
Attorney General/Carson City
Nye County Clerk
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
3
(0) 1947A (ze