Roderos (Michael) v. State ( 2022 )

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA
MICHAEL MANZANO RODEROS, No. 83785
Appellant,
vs.
THE STATE OF NEVADA,
Respondent. AUG 2 b 2022
A. BROWN
UPREME COURT
ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE
CLERK
This is an appeal from a judgment of conviction, pursuant to a
jury verdict, of child abuse or endangerment, battery constituting domestic
violence, and coercion constituting domestic violence. Eighth Judicial
District Court, Clark County; Mary Kay Holthus, Judge.
Appellant Michael Roderos was involved in an altercation with
his wife Sarnantha and his daughter Noelani, who was 16 years old at the
time. Both Samantha and Noelani testified at trial that a conflict began
after they arrived home from an out-of-town trip and found Michael
drinking in the garage. Samantha testified that the argument escalated
when Michael grabbed and twisted her hands. Thereafter, Samantha
decided it was best if she and their minor son, who had been at home with
Michael while Samantha and Noelani were out of town, left the house, so
Samantha went upstairs to pack a bag. Noelani also went upstairs to her
bedroom to call a friend to come pick her up. Noelani testified that Michael
followed her, argued with her, and then backhanded her. Samantha
testified that when she tried to leave the house with their son, Michael
blocked the front door and attempted to take her suitcase away from her.
Noelani testified that her friend eventually arrived with her father, and,
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
(0) I947A
7-- -1-2,6cil 05
after she got in the car, the father drove around the block and called the
police. Michael was arrested the next day at his place of work, where
Samantha also worked. A jury found Michael guilty on all three counts, and
the district court sentenced him to 56-144 months.
Michael appeals, arguing that (1) the district court erred in
sustaining the State's hearsay objection after his counsel tried to impeach
Noelani's testimony, which limited his due process right to assert an
adequate defense; (2) there was insufficient evidence to support his
conviction; and (3) cumulative error warrant reversal.'
During trial, Michael tried to elicit testimony from a police
officer to impeach Noelani's testimony regarding which hand Michael used
when he backhanded her. The State objected on hearsay grounds, and the
district court sustained the objection. Michael does not argue that a
hearsay exception applies or that the district court's ruling on the State's
objection was incorrect. See NRS 51.035 (defining hearsay). Instead,
Michael maintains that the district court should have allowed the line of
questioning and admitted the police report containing Noelani's statement
'Michael raises two additional arguments on appeal: (1) the State
improperly vouched for Samantha by telling her that she was "doing great"
during direct examination, and (2) the district court erred in admitting
Samantha's testimony that Michael was fired from his job because their
employer did not tolerate domestic violence, because that testimony
constituted improper character evidence. Because Michael failed to
preserve these issues for appellate review, he has the affirmative burden to
demonstrate that the errors were plain or clear and that they affected his
substantial rights by showing actual prejudice or a miscarriage of justice,
which he has failed to do. Jeremias v. State, 134 Nev. 46, 50, 412 P.3d 43,
48 (2018) (citing United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 731 (1993)); see NRS
178.602. We perceive no plain error.
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
(0) 1947A
anyway because his due process right to present an adequate defense is "a
counterpoint to the rules of evidence."
We disagree. "Although a criminal defendant has a due process
right to introduce into evidence any testimony or documentation which
would tend to prove the defendant's theory of the case, that right is subject
to the rules of evidence . . . ." Rose v. State, 123 Nev. 194, 205 n.18, 163 P.3d
408, 416 n.18 (2007) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). "Such
rules do not abridge an accused's right to present a defense so long as they
are not arbitrary or disproportionate to the purposes they are designed to
serve." United States v. Scheffer, 523 U.S. 303, 308 (1998) (internal
quotation marks omitted). Here, Michael had the opportunity to impeach
Noelani in accordance with evidence rules by questioning Noelani herself
regarding her statement to the police and which hand Michael used when
he backhanded her, but he failed to do so. We therefore conclude that the
district court did not abuse its discretion by sustaining the State's objection.
See Rhymes v. State, 121 Nev. 17, 21-22, 107 P.3d 1278, 1281 (2005)
(providing that trial courts have broad discretion to admit or exclude
evidence).
Michael next broadly argues that there was insufficient
evidence to support his conviction with respect to each crime charged. We
disagree. Both Samantha and Noelani testified as to Michael's actions on
the night in question, and the State admitted photographic and other
evidence of the injuries sustained by Noelani. See Walker v. State, 91 Nev.
724, 726, 542 P.2d 438, 439 (1975) ("[I]t is the function of the jury, not the
appellate court, to weigh the evidence and pass upon the credibility of the
witness."). We conclude that there was sufficient evidence for a reasonable
jury to find Michael guilty of the crimes charged beyond a reasonable doubt.
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
3
(0) I947A
See McNair v. State, 108 Nev. 53, 56, 825 P.2d 571, 573 (1992) (stating that
this court will not disturb a verdict support by substantial evidence if, "after
viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any
rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime
beyond a reasonable doubt") (quoting Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319
(1979)).
Finally, Michael argues that he is entitled to relief due to
cumulative error. See Valdez v. State, 124 Nev. 1172, 1195, 196 P.3d 465,
481 (2008) (providing the relevant factors to consider for a claim of
cumulative error). However, Michael has not demonstrated any error, so
there is nothing to cumulate. See Barlow v. State, 138 Nev., Adv. Op. 25,
507 P.3d 1185, 1199 (2022) (concluding that errors did not cumulate as
there was only one error). Accordingly, we
ORDER the judgment of conviction AFFIRMED.
Act.
Hardesty
,J
Stiglich Herndon
cc: Hon. Mary Kay Holthus, District Judge
Leslie A. Park
Attorney General/Carson City
Clark County District Attorney
Eighth District Court Clerk
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
4
10) 1947A