Osbaldo Chaparro v. State

Summary

The Nevada Supreme Court affirmed Osbaldo Chaparro's convictions for sexual assault, battery with intent to commit sexual assault, and open or gross lewdness. The court held that conducting sentencing by Zoom during the COVID-19 pandemic did not violate Chaparro's due process right to be present because the hearing remained fair and just under the circumstances. The court also upheld admission of prior sexual-offense evidence and inconclusive DNA evidence, while concluding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in limiting voir dire regarding the prior conviction.

Holdings

1. A defendant's right to be present at sentencing is not violated when, under extraordinary pandemic circumstances, sentencing is conducted by simultaneous audiovisual transmission and the defendant can see and hear the participants, be seen and heard, communicate confidentially with counsel, and address the court, so long as the defendant's absence from the courtroom does not thwart a fair and just hearing.
2. Under NRS 48.045(3), a district court may admit evidence of a defendant's prior sexual offense for propensity purposes in a criminal prosecution for a sexual offense when the prior offense is relevant, a jury could reasonably find by a preponderance of the evidence that it occurred, and the probative value is not substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice.
3. A district court may prohibit voir dire questions that specifically disclose and seek jurors' views about the defendant's particular prior conviction because such questioning may pre-try the case and cause jurors to prejudge the evidence, but courts should not categorically prohibit general inquiry into jurors' views concerning defendants with prior convictions.
4. Inconclusive DNA evidence may be relevant and admissible when it tends to demonstrate the thoroughness of the police investigation or completes the evidentiary narrative, provided it otherwise complies with the rules of evidence and its probative value is not substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice.
5. A cumulative-error claim fails when the court has rejected the alleged assignments of error and has identified no errors to aggregate.

Questions Presented

1. Whether conducting Chaparro's sentencing hearing by Zoom during the COVID-19 pandemic violated his due process right to be present.
2. Whether the district court improperly admitted evidence of Chaparro's prior conviction and the related victim testimony under NRS 48.045(3).
3. Whether the district court improperly limited voir dire questioning concerning the effect of Chaparro's prior conviction on prospective jurors.
4. Whether inconclusive DNA evidence from the victim's tights was relevant and admissible.
5. Whether cumulative error denied Chaparro a fair trial.

Disposition

affirmed