Tom (Lane) v. State

 Moreover, even if the warrant was improperly executed and therefore the
challenged evidence should have been suppressed, he has not
demonstrated prejudice as the victim's eyewitness testimony, DNA
evidence, and video surveillance inculpated him in the offense. See
Gallego, 117 Nev. at 365-66, 23 P.3d at 239 (noting that error must
normally be prejudicial to affect substantial rights and concluding that
substantial rights were not affected when overwhelming evidence
supported the district court's finding).
Having considered Tom's contention and concluded that it is
without merit, we
ORDER the judgment of conviction AFFIRMED.
42 4.3ta....Acyst.....e J.
Parraguirre
Douglas Cherry
cc: Hon. Michael Montero, District Judge
Pershing County Public Defender
Attorney General/Carson City
Humboldt County District Attorney
Humboldt County Clerk
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
(0) 1947A e,