Sangster (Brian) v. State ( 2013 )

 this case is responsible for the error at his first trial and instead faults the
system that allows for jurors to ask questions, but submits that because
the problem is caused by a procedure it should be attributed to the
prosecutor. We find this argument unpersuasive, and conclude that
double jeopardy is not implicated because Sangster consented to the
mistrial and the error was not caused by the State.
Second, Sangster argues that the district court erred by
instructing the jury that he was innocent "until" proven guilty as opposed
to innocent "unless" proven guilty. Sangster asserts that using the word
"until" implies that the jury should inevitably find him guilty, nullifying
the presumption of innocence. However, the instruction also stated that
the State had a burden of proving the elements of the crime beyond a
reasonable doubt and that Sangster was entitled to a verdict of not guilty
if the jury had a reasonable doubt as to his guilt. Other instructions also
emphasized the State's burden. Accordingly, we conclude that the district
court did not abuse its discretion by giving the instruction. See Blake v.
State, 121 Nev. 779, 799, 121 P.3d 567, 580 (2005) (instruction stating
that the defendant was innocent until proven guilty plainly implied that
guilt might not be proven).
Having considered Sangster's contentions and concluded that
they are without merit, we
ORDER the judgment of conviction AFFIRMED.
Gibbons
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
(0) 1947A
cc: Hon. Michelle Leavitt, District Judge
Clark County Public Defender
Attorney General/Carson City
Clark County District Attorney
Eighth District Court Clerk
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
3
(0) 1947A