Summary
The Supreme Court of Nevada affirmed Willie Sampson's convictions and multiple life sentences for kidnapping and sexual offenses involving a minor. The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by excluding a late-disclosed expert witness, and it adopted the rule that evidence of a defendant's refusal to consent to a warrantless search may constitute error but is harmless when it is merely a passing reference. The court also held that unsolicited testimony concerning Sampson's invocation of his rights to remain silent and to counsel was harmless.
Holdings
- The district court did not abuse its discretion by excluding Dr. Racoma's testimony because the defense had access to the school records before trial, could have presented the diagnosis through other evidence, and the late disclosure would have unfairly surprised the State.
- A district court errs when it allows evidence or testimony concerning a defendant's refusal to consent to a warrantless search to support an inference of guilt, but the error is subject to harmless-error analysis.
- The officers' testimony concerning Sampson's refusal to consent was a mere passing reference and, although the district court erred in allowing it, the error was harmless and did not require reversal.
- The detective's brief, unsolicited reference to Sampson's request for an attorney and refusal to speak with officers was error but was harmless and did not require a mistrial or reversal.
Questions Presented
- Whether the district court abused its discretion by excluding a defense expert disclosed on the eighth day of trial to testify about the victim's alleged Oppositional Defiant Disorder.
- Whether the State's presentation of testimony concerning Sampson's refusal to consent to a warrantless search violated the Fourth Amendment and required reversal.
- Whether testimony that Sampson had invoked his rights to remain silent and to counsel required a mistrial or reversal under the Fifth Amendment.
Disposition
affirmed
Cases Cited (16)
- Brown v. State, 110 Nev. 846, 852, 877 P.2d 1071, 1075 (1994)(followed)
- Smith v. State, 100 Nev. 570, 572, 688 P.2d 326, 327 (1984)(followed)
- Reese v. State, 54 Md. App. 281, 458 A.2d 492, 496-97 (Ct. Spec. App. 1983)(followed)
- Farris v. State, 818 N.E.2d 63, 69 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004)(followed)
- United States v. Shay, 57 F.3d 126, 134 (1st Cir. 1995)(followed)
- United States v. Runyan, 290 F.3d 223, 249 (5th Cir. 2002)(followed)
- United States v. Moreno, 233 F.3d 937, 940-41 (7th Cir. 2000)(followed)
- United States v. Dozal, 173 F.3d 787, 794 (10th Cir. 1999)(followed)
- United States v. Thame, 846 F.2d 200, 205-08 (3d Cir. 1988)(followed)
- United States v. Prescott, 581 F.2d 1343, 1351-53 (9th Cir. 1978)(followed)
Showing top 10 of 16.
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…