Nevada Supreme Court 

My appeal to the Nevada Supreme Court had 10 separate issues

ISSUE 1.Evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or bad acts was inadmissible.

Prior to this case I had never been arrested or convicted of any crime.  But the D.A. brought in (thanks to Judge Glass) uncorroborated and unproven prior allegations that were dismissed and sealed/expunged as evidence.  The Nevada Supreme Court (in 1992) ruled that such testimony was inadmissible. 

LaPierre v. State

Testimony regarding an act of which defendant had been acquitted was inadmissible.

Nevada State law (NRS 48.035) states

Although relevant, evidence is not admissible if its probative value is substantially out weighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, of confusion of the issues or of misleading the jury.

(NRS 199.200)

Every unqualified statement of that which one does not know to be true is equivalent to a statement of that which he knows to be false.

McCormick, Evidence S47 at 99 (2ed.1972)

“…facts showing misconduct of the witness (for *108, which no conviction has been had) are collateral, and if denied on cross examination cannot be contradicted.”

US v. Sanchez (1999)

(5) impeachment by use of prior bad acts was improper.

Prosecutor’s impeachment of defendant, during cross examination, regarding defendants alleged reputation for being “one of the largest drug dealers on the reservation” improperly assumed facts not in evidence and was not harmless to defendant’s right to a fair trial.

Moore v. State

[4] It is improper to show by proof of previous bad conduct that the accused had a propensity for committing crime…

In Sanchez, allegations are improperly assumed facts and not allowable.  In Moore, even if there is proof of a crime, it is inadmissible.  There was and is no proof of any prior crime committed by me.  There should NOT have been any mention of prior allegations at trial.  Judge Glass allowed them in and the Nevada Supreme Court never actually addressed this issue.

ISSUE 2.  Testimony about prior bad acts was inadmissible pursuant to NRS 48.045 

There were no prior bad acts, no prior convictions.  Allowing uncorroborated prior allegations into my trial is contrary to Nevada law. 

NRS 48.045  Evidence of character inadmissible to prove conduct;exceptions;other crimes.

2. Evidence of other crimes, wrongs or acts is not admissible to prove the character of a person in order to show that he acted in conformity therewith.

Again, there were no prior crimes committed by me and as such no prior allegations should have been allowed in at trial.  The Nevada Supreme Court didn’t address this issue either.

ISSUE 3.  District court erred when it permitted several instances of hearsay testimony to be admitted.

ISSUE 4.  District court erred when it failed to suppress images obtained from a computer because the search warrant didn’t contain sufficient information to support probable cause.

(Click on the Search Warrants link)

ISSUE 5.  There was insufficient evidence to support conviction of possession of visual representation depicting sexual conduct of a person under the age of 16.

(Click on the Expert Witness Testimony link)

ISSUE 6.  District court erred when it failed to dismiss the child porn counts based upon improper pleading and notice.

According to Nevada State law (NRS174.234), the D.A. is required to disclose a report of what his expert will testify about 21 days prior to trial. The D.A. did not do this.

ISSUE 7.  Testimony regarding prior bad acts was inadmissible because the resulting court proceedings were sealed or expunged.

It was in violation of Pennsylvania law for Christina Butler to testify about the expunged case from Pennsylvania.  PA Law states: 

Pennsylvania Statute 35 P.S. 780-119 states:  Any expunged record of arrest or prosecution shall not hereafter be regarded as an arrest or prosecution for the purpose of any statute or regulation or license or questionnaire or any civil or criminal proceeding or any other public or private purpose.  No person shall be permitted to learn of an expunged arrest or prosecution, or of the expunction, either directly or indirectly.  Any person, except the individual arrested or prosecuted, who divulges such information in violation of this subsection, shall be guilty of a summary offense.

ISSUE 8.  Jury misconduct warranted a new trial.  (Click on the Jury Misconduct link) 

ISSUE 9.  District Court erred when it denied the motion to sever the lewdness counts from the child pornography counts.

ISSUE 10.  The convictions must be reversed based upon the cumulative errors committed during trial. 

         The Nevada Supreme Court only addressed issues 7, 8,& 9 with law or legal opinions.  They did NOT address issues 1-6 & 10 with any legal reasoning or citing of any law.  They merely stated that those issues were “without merit.” Issues 1 & 2 were directly related to issue 7, yet the Nevada Supreme Court said they were without merit.  The Supreme Court could find no legal standing to rule against those issues so they merely ignored them.  Issue 4 was a clear 4th Amendment violation.  I’d say the Nevada Supreme Court is “without merit.” 

         The Nevada Supreme Court obviously saw the violations and misconduct in my case and decided to help cover it up so that I couldn’t sue everyone involved.  I’m sure their hope is that I’d give up at this point or possibly miss the deadline for my Federal appeal.  They were mistaken!!  The Nevada Supreme Court didn’t have the integrity to rule according to the law in my case.  I am hopeful that the Federal appeals court does as that is where I am now headed.

         Currently the NV Supreme Court received the appeal I submitted because of the denial of my writ for ineffective assistance of counsel.  This is a mandatory step in the appeals process.  I’m required to file a writ for ineffective counsel and an appeal if it’s denied or I can’t move onto the federal courts.  I do not  believe the attorneys were ineffective.  My appeal to the Nevada Supreme Court of this writ simply stated that I am appealing. No reasons, no law cited, no grounds whatsoever. It should have been denied because I didn’t have ineffective counsel.  Instead, the Nevada Supreme Court ruled that a full review of my case is warranted and ordered all court/trial transcripts and motions from my case. Why? In an attempt to slow down my appeal process.  They’re trying to delay me getting to the federal courts.  They already reviewed my case on direct appeal.  I’ve raised no new legal grounds now, so there is no reason for them to review my case.  They’re wasting taxpayer money just so they can delay my federal appeal.

          I will not be deterred and I will get to the federal courts as soon as the Nevada Supreme Court finishes with their delay tactics.