Summary
The Supreme Court of Nevada affirmed Devohn Marks's judgment of conviction for conspiracy, burglary, robbery, and battery offenses involving deadly weapons. The court held that sufficient evidence supported the convictions, the district court properly admitted evidence of a prior similar robbery, and the denial of substitute counsel was not an abuse of discretion. The court also found no plain error in the jury-instruction issues concerning accomplice testimony.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether sufficient evidence, including legally adequate corroboration of accomplice testimony, supported the convictions.
- Whether the district court abused its discretion by admitting evidence of Marks's participation in a prior bar burglary and robbery to establish identity.
- Whether the district court abused its discretion by denying Marks's motion for substitute counsel.
- Whether the district court plainly erred by failing to instruct the jury expressly that accomplice testimony must be corroborated.
Holdings
- The evidence was sufficient to support the convictions because the accomplice's testimony was independently corroborated by victim testimony, surveillance video, cell-phone records, and other evidence connecting Marks to the offenses.
- The district court did not abuse its discretion by admitting evidence of Marks's prior bar robbery because the evidence was sufficiently similar to the charged offenses to be probative of identity, was proved by clear and convincing evidence, and its probative value was not substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice.
- The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Marks's motion for new counsel because the disagreement over litigating pretrial motions did not establish a complete collapse of the attorney-client relationship, and the district court adequately investigated the concerns.
- The district court did not plainly err by failing to give the requested express accomplice-corroboration instruction because the instruction given implicitly required corroboration, the omission was not patently prejudicial, and independent evidence corroborated the accomplice's testimony.
Key quotations
“whether, 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.” (2)
“Evidence of other crimes has strong probative value when there is sufficient evidence of similar characteristics of conduct in each crime to show the perpetrator of the other crime and the perpetrator of the crime for which the defendant has been charged is one and the same person.” (3)
“unfair prejudice, as to a criminal defendant, speaks to the capacity of some concededly relevant evidence to lure the factfinder into declaring guilt on a ground different from proof specific to the offense charged.” (5)
Factual background
Marks was convicted in connection with an armed robbery and burglary involving a bar, its register, and patrons, including a victim who was sixty-nine years old. An alleged accomplice testified that Marks helped plan the crime, communicated with the accomplice before the robbery, and was one of the armed, masked assailants. Surveillance video, cell-phone records, and victim testimony corroborated the accomplice's account. The State also introduced evidence that Marks participated in a similar bar robbery in 2011, approximately seven years before the charged offenses and seven months after his release from custody.
Procedural history
A jury convicted Marks of multiple conspiracy, burglary, robbery, and battery offenses, including deadly-weapon and victim-age enhancements. On appeal, Marks challenged the sufficiency of the evidence, admission of a prior robbery as other-bad-act evidence, denial of his motion for new counsel, and the failure to give a specific accomplice-corroboration instruction. The Nevada Supreme Court rejected each contention and affirmed the judgment of conviction.