From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Leibel v. State

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA
Dec 18, 2015
No. 68113 (Nev. Dec. 18, 2015)

Opinion

No. 68113

12-18-2015

TATIANA LEIBEL, Appellant, v. THE STATE OF NEVADA, Respondent.


An unpublished order shall not be regarded as precedent and shall not be cited as legal authority. SCR 123.

ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE

This is an appeal from a judgment of conviction, pursuant to a jury verdict, of second-degree murder with the use of a firearm. Ninth Judicial District Court, Douglas County; Nathan Tod Young, Judge.

First, appellant contends that the prosecutor committed misconduct during closing argument when he referenced O.J. Simpson's criminal trial, pointing out that the defense in Simpson's case focused on inadequacies in the police investigation. She further argues that this misconduct was exacerbated by the prosecutor's comment that a defense expert had a low opinion of local law enforcement. The district court overruled appellant's objection to the reference to Simpson's trial. To the extent the prosecutor's comments suggested that appellant's argument regarding the allegedly sub-par performance by law enforcement in this case was a ploy used by all defendants to escape liability since the Simpson verdict, they were inappropriate. See Valdez v. State, 124 Nev. 1172, 1191, 196 P.3d 465, 478 (2008); Williams v. State, 103 Nev. 106, 110, 734 P.2d 700, 703 (1987). However, any misconduct was harmless. See Valdez, 124 Nev. at 1189, 196 P.3d at 476 (describing non-constitutional harmless error). To the extent appellant independently challenges the prosecutor's comment regarding the defense expert, she did not object, and has not demonstrated plain error affecting her substantial rights. See id. at 1190, 196 P.3d at 477. Accordingly, we

Appellant also contends that the district court erred by "allow[ing] expert testimony on causation that did not rise to a level of reasonable scientific certainty." No relief is warranted because the expert testified at trial that his conclusions were to a reasonable degree of scientific certainty. --------

ORDER the judgment of conviction AFFIRMED.

/s/_________, J.

Saitta

/s/_________, J.

Gibbons

/s/_________, J.

Pickering cc: Hon. Nathan Tod Young, District Judge

Jamie C. Henry

Kristine L. Brown

Attorney General/Carson City

Douglas County District Attorney/Minden

Douglas County Clerk


Summaries of

Leibel v. State

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA
Dec 18, 2015
No. 68113 (Nev. Dec. 18, 2015)
Case details for

Leibel v. State

Case Details

Full title:TATIANA LEIBEL, Appellant, v. THE STATE OF NEVADA, Respondent.

Court:SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

Date published: Dec 18, 2015

Citations

No. 68113 (Nev. Dec. 18, 2015)

Citing Cases

Leibel v. State

Leibel's postconviction habeas petition was untimely because it was filed six years after remittitur issued…