-
Petrocelli2 hearing. He further argues that the evidence was inadmissible because it was more prejudicial than probative. We disagree. First, arguably the evidence did not refer to prior bad acts because the entries appear to reflect a future plan rather than a written recording suggesting that appellant took any action toward shooting a police officer and killing Danny and Rodger or accomplished those deeds. As such, no Petrocelli hearing was required before admitting the note. Second, even assuming a Petrocelli hearing should have been conducted, the error is not reversible when the record sufficiently establishes that the evidence was admissible under Tinch v. State,
113 Nev. 1170, 1176,
946 P.2d 1061, 1064-65 (1997) (setting forth test for admissibility of prior bad act evidence—"(1) the incident is relevant to the crime charged; (2) the act is proven by clear and convincing evidence; and (3) the probative value of the evidence is not substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice"), as amended by Bigpond v. State, 128 Nev. _7 -7
270 P.3d 1244, 1249-50 (2012), "or the trial result would have been the same had the trial court excluded the evidence." Diomampo v. State,
124 Nev. 414, 430,
185 P.3d 1031, 1041 (2008). Here, we conclude that the evidence met the Tinch test because it was relevant to the offense and proven by clear and convincing evidence based on the victim's identification of the handwriting in the note as belonging to appellant. We reject appellant's contention that the challenged evidence was more prejudicial than probative. Although the evidence was prejudicial, it was not unfairly prejudicial because it was probative of the perpetrator's 2Petrocelli v. State,
101 Nev. 46,
692 P.2d 503(1985). SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 2 (0) 1947A identity and possible motive for committing the offense. See NRS 48.035(1); NRS 48.045(2). Having considered appellant's arguments and concluded that they lack merit, we ORDER the judgment of conviction AFFIRMED. ,J Hardesty Parraguirre Cherry cc: Chief Judge, Tenth Judicial District Hon. Robert E. Estes, Senior Judge Churchill County Public Defender Troy Curtis Jordan Churchill County District Attorney Attorney General/Carson City Churchill County Clerk 3
Document Info
Docket Number: 62073
Filed Date: 6/13/2013
Precedential Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 4/18/2021