Zeger (Quinn) v. State ( 2022 )

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA
QUINN ALEXANDER ZEGER, No. 83734
Appellant,
vs.
THE STATE OF NEVADA,
Respondent. NOV 2022
. JR,
ORDER OF REVERSAL AND REMAN
This is an appeal from a judgment of conviction, pursuant to a
jury verdict, of voluntary manslaughter. Eighth Judicial District Court,
Clark County; Cristina D. Silva, Judge.
Appellant Quinn Zeger was charged with murder for the death
of Rodney Beal. Before trial, Zeger sought to exclude the police body-worn
camera footage of a conversation between Las Vegas Metropolitan Police
Department Officer Juan Contreras and Beal before Beal's death, arguing
that it was testimonial hearsay in violation of the Confrontation Clause.
The district court granted Zeger's motion. However, during the trial, the
district court allowed the body-worn camera footage to be admitted and
played for the jury over Zeger's objection because the district court found
that the defense expert had opened the door to the footage. The jury
subsequently convicted Zeger of voluntary manslaughter, and he was
sentenced to serve a prison term of 48 to 120 months. Zeger now appeals,
primarily arguing that the body-worn camera footage violated the
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
tO1 l'47A
z
Confrontation Clause of the United States Constitution.' U.S. Const.
amend VI.
This court reviews potential Confrontation Clause violations de
novo. Chavez v. State, 125 Nev. 328, 339, 213 P.3d 476, 484 (2009). "The
threshold question in evaluating a confrontation right . . . is whether the
statement was testimonial in nature." Vega v. State, 126 Nev. 332, 339, 236
P.3d 632, 637 (2010). If the statement is testimonial, then it "is
inadmissible unless the defendant had an opportunity to previously cross-
examine the witness regarding the witness's statement." Id. at 338, 236
P.3d at 637 (internal quotation marks omitted). However, even if there is a
Confrontation Clause violation, it is subject to harmless error review.
Medina v. State, 122 Nev. 346, 355, 143 P.3d 471, 476 (2006).
"[A] statement is testimonial if it would lead an objective
witness reasonably to believe that the statement would be available for use
at a later trial." Harkins v. State, 122 Nev. 974, 986, 143 P.3d 706, 714
(2006) (emphasis and internal quotation marks omitted). "[T]he inquiry
requires examination of the totality of the circumstances surrounding the
making of the statement." Id. at 987, 143 P.3d at 714. This court has
provided a nonexhaustive list of factors for determining whether a
statement is testimonial:
(1) to whom the statement was made, a government
agent or an acquaintance; (2) whether the
statement was spontaneous, or made in response to
'Zeger also contends that his state constitutional rights to due process
of law, equal protection, and the right to confront witnesses were violated.
Nevada Const. art. I, § 3, 6, 8; id. art. IV, § 21. However, Zeger does not
make any particularized argument under these provisions, and we
accordingly do not address any state constitutional rights arguments in thi s
disposition.
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
1947A
a question (e.g., whether the statement was the
product of a police interrogation); (3) whether the
inquiry eliciting the statement was for the purpose
of gathering evidence for possible use at a later
trial, or whether it was to provide assistance in an
emergency; and (4) whether the statement was
made while an emergency was ongoing, or whether
it was a recount of past events made in a more
formal setting sometime after the exigency had
ended.
Id.
Viewing the totality of the circumstances, we conclude that the
conversation between Officer Contreras and Beal was testimonial. Beal
made the statements in response to Officer Contreras's questioning. And
while the State contends that the statements were to address an ongoing
emergency, Beal had already been seen by the paramedics, was lying alone
on the side of a building, and stated that the events had occurred "the other
night." Accordingly, we conclude that an objective witness would
reasonably believe that Beal's statements would be available for use at a
later trial. Id. at 986, 143 P.3d at 714.
Moreover, the defense cannot open the door to otherwise
inadmissible hearsay evidence being admitted. The United States Supreme
Court has recently addressed this issue and held that a trial court violated
the Confrontation Clause "by admitting unconfronted, testimonial hearsay
against [the defendant] simply because the judge deemed his presentation
to have created a misleading impression that the testimonial hearsay was
reasonably necessary to correct." Hemphill v. New York, U.S.
142 S. Ct. 681, 692 (2022). The Court went on to say that it "has not held
that defendants can 'open the door' to violations of constitutional
requirements merely by making evidence relevant to contradict their
defense." Id. (emphasis added). Accordingly, we conclude that the district
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
3
(t I) 1.47A ,IS,rys
court erred by admitting the body-worn camera footage based solely on the
assertion that the defense expert opened the door.
Finally, "before a federal constitutional error can be held
harmless, the court must be able to declare a belief that it was harmless
beyond a reasonable doubt." Medina, 122 Nev. at 355, 143 P.3d at 477
(internal quotation marks omitted). The State must "show beyond a
reasonable doubt that the error complained of did not contribute to the
verdict obtained." Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). We noted that
the United States Supreme Court has identified several relevant factors for
determining whether a Confrontation Clause error is harmless, including
"the importance of the witness' testimony in the prosecution's case, whether
the testimony was cumulative, the presence or absence of evidence
corroborating or contradicting the testimony of the witness on material
points, . . and, of course, the overall strength of the prosecution's case." ld.
(omission in original) (internal quotation marks omitted).
Here, we conclude that the district court's error which led to a
violation of Zeger's right to confrontation was not harmless beyond a
reasonable doubt. The State repeatedly addressed the body-worn caniera
footage in closing arguments, stating to the jury that it was "the best
investigative information." Moreover, without the body-worn camera
footage, the State was left without direct evidence that Zeger attacked Beal,
and that Zeger attacked Beal within the State's alleged timeline. Because
the overall strength of the State's case without the body-worn camera
footage is weak, we cannot conclude, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
4
(OP IV47A
•
body-worn camera footage did not contribute to Leger's conviction.2
Accordingly, we
ORDER the judgment of conviction REVERSED AND
REMAND this matter to the district court.
Hardesty
AIA-5L-0
Stiglich
Herndon
cc: Hon. Cristina D. Silva, District Judge
Special Public Defender
Attorney General/Carson City
Clark County District Attorney
Eighth District Court Clerk
2 We reject Zeger's argument that there was insufficient evidence
because a rational trier of fact could have found Zeger guilty of voluntary
manslaughter without the body-worn camera footage based on the evidence
and testimony presented at trial. Newson v. State, 136 Nev. 181, 188, 462
P.3d 246, 252 (2020). However, in light of this court's disposition, we need
not address Zeger's remaining arguments.
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
5
1(11 L'147A